3 ms·

It was the closest thing the Incans had to an Internet, and a bit more like digital technology than those of us raised on the idea that the Incans had no system

by gojomo 13y ago

It was the closest thing the Incans had to an Internet, and a bit more like digital technology than those of us raised on the idea that the Incans had no system of writing would expect. And of course anything with such a title will be speaking figuratively: if you were fooled, or unable to see the basis for the metaphor, the fault lies as much with your literalism as the original submitter's stab at metaphor. Now, I'd agree "The Incan Internet" could be improved as a title, especially to explain the article's relevance to this audience. "Quipu: the Incans' digital communication tech" would bridge the gap from the original title to the interesting, vaguely-Internet-like aspect for HN readers. Unfortunately, it seems the mysterious headline-changing-Gnomes of HN only have a button for "revert to original TITLE", and a fierce loyalty to literalism over creative-but-fair headlines. So, we wind up with useless-but-easily-enforced crap headlines like "Quipu".

cbhl 13y ago
IMO, authors need to start writing more descriptive headlines.
derleth 13y ago
It's part of a disturbing presentism that is (and probably has always been) rampant in popularized history. It's as if authors think we can't understand anything unless we see it through the lens of some popular current technology or movement. It's a great way to misunderstand something entirely. This trivializes the subject of history, by enforcing the idea that nothing ever changes. "The Incas had an Internet, we have an Internet, so they must have been just exactly like us, so studying them is a waste of time." Moreover, it ignores the real work done in modern times to make our era different from times past: If anything we have now can be equated with something we had then using facile arguments that make a hash of the facts, then we can make it look like there is no progress and that we don't need to study science or technology any longer. It's sham history in the service of sham philosophy.
- gojomo 13y ago
  If an author had written a long case defending the analogy, maybe. But it was a throwaway metaphor in a headline to pique interest, so I think you're projecting those other unrelated concerns onto the situation. In particular, it's those complaining about how the headline wasted their time who are belittling the value of historical comparisons across very different eras and societies. Their reaction is, "What? The Incans didn't really have anything that could literally be called an Internet? You tricked me into clicking when I could have stayed even more narrowly focused on my present-day Internet-centric concerns!" Whereas instead, the headline author was trying to shake people out of their presentism with the figurative language. "There is something surprising here about the Incans", he was saying – and absolutely not any larger objectionable/anti-intellectual theme about how "there is no progress" (which is obviously unsupportable from the details on the Quipu system).

by gojomo 13y ago

cbhl 13y ago

IMO, authors need to start writing more descriptive headlines.

derleth 13y ago

It's part of a disturbing presentism that is (and probably has always been) rampant in popularized history. It's as if authors think we can't understand anything unless we see it through the lens of some popular current technology or movement. It's a great way to misunderstand something entirely. This trivializes the subject of history, by enforcing the idea that nothing ever changes. "The Incas had an Internet, we have an Internet, so they must have been just exactly like us, so studying them is a waste of time." Moreover, it ignores the real work done in modern times to make our era different from times past: If anything we have now can be equated with something we had then using facile arguments that make a hash of the facts, then we can make it look like there is no progress and that we don't need to study science or technology any longer. It's sham history in the service of sham philosophy.

gojomo 13y ago
If an author had written a long case defending the analogy, maybe. But it was a throwaway metaphor in a headline to pique interest, so I think you're projecting those other unrelated concerns onto the situation. In particular, it's those complaining about how the headline wasted their time who are belittling the value of historical comparisons across very different eras and societies. Their reaction is, "What? The Incans didn't really have anything that could literally be called an Internet? You tricked me into clicking when I could have stayed even more narrowly focused on my present-day Internet-centric concerns!" Whereas instead, the headline author was trying to shake people out of their presentism with the figurative language. "There is something surprising here about the Incans", he was saying – and absolutely not any larger objectionable/anti-intellectual theme about how "there is no progress" (which is obviously unsupportable from the details on the Quipu system).