I'd suggest, regarding social impact, the lesson is about the importance of manufacturing consent. This is where we really failed – and did so systematically (and this is not limited to a specific country).
The Big Lessons from History
11–20 of 38 posts
Re: The Big Lessons from History
#12>History is full of specific lessons that aren’t relevant to most people, and not fully applicable to future events because things rarely repeat exactly as they did in the past. An imperfect rule of thumb is that the more granular the lesson, the less useful it is to the future. I think this is throwing away something incredibly important. The way things are today is because of events in the past. Things have provena…
>History is full of specific lessons that aren’t relevant to most people, and not fully applicable to future events because things rarely repeat exactly as they did in the past. An imperfect rule of thumb is that the more granular the lesson, the less useful it is to the future. I would say that suprisingly lots of history is relevant today because all history is revisonist history. Historians look at past people and…
> Historians look at past people and situations through today's lenses and bringing up what resonates with todays problems and dilemas.
Historian here. This is bias is among the first things you learn to discern as an undergraduate. Historical research never starts from a premise "We can observe X in current events, is it possible to find similar events and patterns in the past?" Why? Because the trap here is to apply modern concepts, schools of thoughts and ideas in a past context where they absolutely did not exist.
> Also the human nature isn't changeable so political and social and personal dilemas of ancient Athens, Rome or China can resonate with us.
The resonate with us because the past can inspire us and helps us reflect on human nature. But that's about all it does. Transposing societal structures, ideas, thinking and so on from Ancient Rome to the current day is a fallacy because it denies the 2.000 years of history and evolving societal, cultural, religious, economical, political thinking that happened in between.
Another fallacy is in this way of thinking is that history is teleological and ends with today being the end of human evolution and history; that today is the only logical outcome of everything that led up to today. Determinism really doesn't work well when you want to narrate and explain history.
It's also the reason why I'm skeptical of Yuval Harari's work. His re-telling of human history is thought provoking and prompts for reflection and debate. But in no way does it mean that his take on history is the definitive story.
Re: The Big Lessons from History
#13>History is full of specific lessons that aren’t relevant to most people, and not fully applicable to future events because things rarely repeat exactly as they did in the past. An imperfect rule of thumb is that the more granular the lesson, the less useful it is to the future. I think this is throwing away something incredibly important. The way things are today is because of events in the past. Things have provena…
>History is full of specific lessons that aren’t relevant to most people, and not fully applicable to future events because things rarely repeat exactly as they did in the past. An imperfect rule of thumb is that the more granular the lesson, the less useful it is to the future. I would say that suprisingly lots of history is relevant today because all history is revisonist history. Historians look at past people and…
Bad historians, write works showing past events through the new lenses of current cultural/political affairs. Good historians reveal ancient perspectives, their differences to ours, so that the supposition of two different perspectives with their similarities and differences is what we can reflect and learn from.
Re: The Big Lessons from History
#14>History is full of specific lessons that aren’t relevant to most people, and not fully applicable to future events because things rarely repeat exactly as they did in the past. An imperfect rule of thumb is that the more granular the lesson, the less useful it is to the future. I think this is throwing away something incredibly important. The way things are today is because of events in the past. Things have provena…
> It is important to understand why historians have put so much weight on things like the french revolution and the trappings of the Roman Empire.
It's true that things have provenance. However, one of the things you learn as a modern history undergrad is this: be skeptical and critical of the historical record.
The historical record isn't a perfect reflection of the past. It's always coloured. Why is so much emphasis put on the French Revolution? Or the American Revolution? Because both events are re-purposed to support national identities of both modern France and America. Those identities encompass a vast range of cultural and moral values that permeate daily and societal life. It provides an answer to the question "Who are we?"
However, when the Parisians took to the Bastille on the 14th of July or the Bostonians decided to throw British tea overboard, they didn't do so with the decisive notion "Well, this will lead to the establishment of the Republic with all it's modern trappings and entire national mythology." No. They just did that as an expression to their grievances to their legitimate sovereign at that particular time in history, and not much more.
It's the responsibility of historical researchers to undo history of the many layers of meaning and value, and re-tell the story as it unfolded at the time based on established facts.
Re: The Big Lessons from History
#15The 2nd lesson resonates with me a lot. Particularly the bit about being a pessimistic saver and an optimistic investor.
I'm 34. It's dawning on me that I have been a pessimist all of my life. I have saved and saved, cut expenses here, minimized consumption there. I have known a bit of poverty in my earlier days and while my minimalism may reflect an on-going poverty, I have done ok for myself by two metrics: I own a home and I never let a price tag prevent me from buying what I want at the grocery store. These metrics are paramount to me. If I cannot guarantee them for myself, I am poor. If I can, I am financially unbreakable. It's my own, very humble version of 'fuck you' money.
It has served me alright but not on the flip-side as the article mentions. I am constantly concerned about the next crash and the future seems bleak whether it's climate change, decreasing class mobility, the return of feudalism, or simply the ugliness of an overly complex tech-driven world. In my life, I have only known an irrationally exuberant market and even as I try to overcome my pessimism, it's difficult to tell whether it's not all at all-time-highs. I am loathe to embarrass myself by investing right as everything is about to come down. Now, I am trying to figure out the the right diversification and dollar-cost averaging strategy for myself. (Yes, I should have invested in March. I've made some profits since then but I would've liked to be more deeply invested rather than take profits from quick trades.)
Like everyone else, my friends/associates/colleagues are potential business partners in that we have the same interests, expertise, and drives. I have noticed that the successful ones are usually the optimists. Surely all enterprising begins with hope. But obviously, like any pessimist, I see myself as a realist, and I am sincere and frank in my discussions with others, but at what cost? It's realistic to acknowledge that pessimism drives away opportunity, so I must become an optimist. But how?
Re: The Big Lessons from History
#16>History is full of specific lessons that aren’t relevant to most people, and not fully applicable to future events because things rarely repeat exactly as they did in the past. An imperfect rule of thumb is that the more granular the lesson, the less useful it is to the future. I think this is throwing away something incredibly important. The way things are today is because of events in the past. Things have provena…
That said most people, i.e. the non revolutionaries (which is the HN crowd), survive and will survive just fine not knowing anything about revolution or revolutionaries. My favourite example of such a survivor is Joseph Marie Jacquard inventor of the Jacquard Loom (that which inspired Charles Babbage). Jacquards town would be taken over by revolutionaries on one day, counter revolutionaries on another, local royalty…
Didn't work out so well for Lavoisier.
Re: The Big Lessons from History
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
That said most people, i.e. the non revolutionaries (which is the HN crowd), survive and will survive just fine not knowing anything about revolution or revolutionaries. My favourite example of such a survivor is Joseph Marie Jacquard inventor of the Jacquard Loom (that which inspired Charles Babbage). Jacquards town would be taken over by revolutionaries on one day, counter revolutionaries on another, local royalty…
That strategy works until the power-of-the-day decides that your race/class/religion is the Enemy. Good luck being Jewish in 1940s Germany, or a Kulak in 1930s Soviet Union, or a Christian during the Cultural Revolution, etc.
Yeah, young engineer Korolev was purged by Stalinist USSR for no good reason and while he survived the ordeal, his health was compromised. It is possible that his comparatively early death slowed Soviet space program down.
Re: The Big Lessons from History
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
>History is full of specific lessons that aren’t relevant to most people, and not fully applicable to future events because things rarely repeat exactly as they did in the past. An imperfect rule of thumb is that the more granular the lesson, the less useful it is to the future. I would say that suprisingly lots of history is relevant today because all history is revisonist history. Historians look at past people and…
The problem with history is the lessons are long, complicated and easily tainted by the historian's bias. And, interestingly, in politics people tend to look into history for grievances rather than looking for what works. One of the interesting trends that characterises China's current successes is decades of asking "what are other people doing that is working?". That seems to make them a little unusual.
I dont think this is true. In politics, they often look for great grand past to return to or they look for myth to inspire people from.
It can be social like "more natural living uncorrupted by artificial modernity" or "when the men were real men and women real women". Or it can be ambitious like past grand project or imperium of good to emulate with grand projects now. It can be any kind of claiming to go into own roots, who we really are. It is often mythologization and idealization of past and past figures in order to push for current goals.
Majority of historical figures quotes are out of context, but still used for contemporary politics. Historical figures are painted as flawless greatest, so that we can take their words and use them for ourselves. All that is politics.
Look at how often politicians quote King - as cynical and out of context as most of it is, it literally represents looking into past for what works.
Re: The Big Lessons from History
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
>History is full of specific lessons that aren’t relevant to most people, and not fully applicable to future events because things rarely repeat exactly as they did in the past. An imperfect rule of thumb is that the more granular the lesson, the less useful it is to the future. I would say that suprisingly lots of history is relevant today because all history is revisonist history. Historians look at past people and…
Bad historians, write works showing past events through the new lenses of current cultural/political affairs. Good historians reveal ancient perspectives, their differences to ours, so that the supposition of two different perspectives with their similarities and differences is what we can reflect and learn from.
There is no such thing is single ancient perspective. All past events had multiple players with multiple different perspectives on what is going on and what should happen. And there is no such thing as single modern perspective either.
I think that the big mistake people do when representing past is that they take one representant of "what past people thought" and proceed to ignore opinions and perspectives of everyone else in that period.
Re: The Big Lessons from History
#20The Morgen Housel posts always get on the front page of HN and they are always full of pablum. You can take anything he says and turn it around, say the exact opposite, and it would also make you nod your head. For instance "Important things rarely have one cause." Or you could say "Important things usually have one cause." The pandemic has one cause, the virus. Or "People believe what they want to believe" is literally a tautology. Or "progress requires optimism and pessimism" could be turned into "progress requires blind optimism" which would be equally true. Finally, I don't think Morgen Housel exists. Look at his photo, it's obviously generated by an AI, as are his tripe-filled posts.