Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Historians have an increasingly strong incentive to tell dramatic stories

ian-leslie.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 256 posts

Re: Historians have an increasingly strong incentive to tell dramatic stories

#61

Post by vacuity »

verisimi wrote: post #22

History is written by the victors, and then endlessly rewritten after that. At present, historians are very busy writing the history of subaltern voices - ie introducing stories from marginalised perspectives into the historical record. At the other end of this sausage factory are the consumers who are fed this information which is presented as fact - hardly ever are we presented with the raw evidence that these stor…

> History is written by the victors

Look up the "Lost Cause of the Confederacy":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy

A notable and unfortunate exception. To give you an idea of its impact:

> First enunciated in 1866, it has continued to influence racism, gender roles, and religious attitudes in the Southern United States to the present day.

> In that regard, white supremacy is a central feature of the Lost Cause narrative.

Re: Historians have an increasingly strong incentive to tell dramatic stories

#62

Post by SoftTalker »

Mr_Modulo wrote: post #14

Today we have news for conservatives and different news for liberals. That's stupid. News doesn't need built in commentary. Now it seems like history is going the same way. We will have conservative history and liberal history. But I hope not.

It's not really news, though it calls itself that. It's entertainment, and it's written and dramaticized to get readers/viewers and ad views. This is true on both sides of the political spectrum. Strong opinions engage viewers, often even if they don't agree with them. Fox News or MSNBC don't care if people are watching them because they love them or hate them, as long as they are watching.

Re: Historians have an increasingly strong incentive to tell dramatic stories

#63

Post by WalterBright »

These attempts to rewrite history to fit a narrative happen all the time. For example, I see constant attempts to deny that the Wrights' 1903 Flyer was the first powered, controlled flight. The evidence presented is always a pile of fanciful conjecture.

This rewrite occurs with modern events, too. For example, the narrative on the 737MAX crashes. I've posted about it here many times. On a recent trip, I ran into a 737-800 captain on layover, and struck up a conversation. I chided him a bit about remembering the stab trim cutoff switch. Well, that opened the floodgates. He told me in no uncertain terms that those accidents would have never happened to him, because he knew how to fly the 737. He told me one way they could have recovered the airplane was the one I mentioned here many times - trim to normal and turn off the stab trim system. He said there was another way. The EA airplane was operating at full throttle. The overspeed warning could be heard on the cockpit voice recorder. The pilots ignored it. Overspeed is a very dangerous situation, as the air loads on the airplane exceed design limits. All the pilots had to do was just pull the throttle back. Then they could have manually retrimmed the stabilizer, which they tried to but could not because of the overspeed.

He added that all the 737 pilots he knew knew about this, but were afraid to speak up.

Remember all the narrative about the pilots could not have diagnosed stab trim runaway? This infuriated him, because when the trim runs, it spins two wheels right by the pilots' knees, making a loud and unmistakable clack-clacking sound. Something I was told about by Boeing engineers, but it was nice to hear it from a captain.

I suspect that the reason the single point of failure design of the MCAS went through is Boeing simply assumed that the pilots would just turn off the stab trim system if it misbehaved. And this is exactly what happened in the first MCAS incident - the crew turned it off, and continued the flight normally and landed safely.

Re: Historians have an increasingly strong incentive to tell dramatic stories

#64

Post by jncfhnb »

WalterBright wrote: post #63

These attempts to rewrite history to fit a narrative happen all the time. For example, I see constant attempts to deny that the Wrights' 1903 Flyer was the first powered, controlled flight. The evidence presented is always a pile of fanciful conjecture. This rewrite occurs with modern events, too. For example, the narrative on the 737MAX crashes. I've posted about it here many times. On a recent trip, I ran into a 73…

As someone who did not follow this in great detail, I don’t anyone claiming it was not possible to diagnose, merely that the signals towards it were very poor and that training for things was bad, and that the crews that experienced crashes had fewer safety features than typical western crews or something like that.

Your position here seems zany to me. Clack clacking sounds are not sufficient. Assuming that pilots would just turn off the system is not sufficient.

Re: Historians have an increasingly strong incentive to tell dramatic stories

#65

Post by anonuser123456 »

"Historians have an increasingly strong incentive to tell dramatic stories which gain attention and make ‘impact’"

Asserted without evidence in an opinion piece arguing for the use of evidence. Not super compelling. Historian's have had incentives for dramatic narratives since the age of Homer.

Re: Historians have an increasingly strong incentive to tell dramatic stories

#66

Post by jncfhnb »

verisimi wrote: post #45
nextaccountic wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> History is written by the victors Not necessarily; history is written by those that are literate. Here's some threads about it https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/xcqgc/they_a... https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1903ac/is_hi... https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/516t6c/is_hi... https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2becnq/i_hea... https://www.reddit.com/r/history/co…

But do you realise that the research you present here is not actually evidence? It is a link to a historian's opinion. It would be like reading a quote from the guardian about how Bulstrode is presenting remarkable research. Meta analysis such as this, based on hearsay rather than personal verification and assessment of the actual evidence, is assuredly not the way to get to the truth of the matter.

Seems like a fairly intuitive claim though.

Re: Historians have an increasingly strong incentive to tell dramatic stories

#68

Post by WalterBright »

jncfhnb wrote: post #64
WalterBright wrote: post #63

These attempts to rewrite history to fit a narrative happen all the time. For example, I see constant attempts to deny that the Wrights' 1903 Flyer was the first powered, controlled flight. The evidence presented is always a pile of fanciful conjecture. This rewrite occurs with modern events, too. For example, the narrative on the 737MAX crashes. I've posted about it here many times. On a recent trip, I ran into a 73…

As someone who did not follow this in great detail, I don’t anyone claiming it was not possible to diagnose, merely that the signals towards it were very poor and that training for things was bad, and that the crews that experienced crashes had fewer safety features than typical western crews or something like that. Your position here seems zany to me. Clack clacking sounds are not sufficient. Assuming that pilots wo…

> I don’t anyone claiming it was not possible to diagnose

I read many times that it was impossible to diagnose it as runaway stabilizer trim.

> training for things was bad

Stabilizer trim runaway is trained for. Pulling back the throttles for overspeed warning is trained for.

> that the crews that experienced crashes had fewer safety features than typical western crews

How would you explain not being able to handle runaway stabilizer trim, and ignoring overspeed warnings? How do you explain the Emergency Airworthiness Directive sent to all MAX pilots after the first crash, that reiterated what I'm writing here, yet the EA pilots either never received it, never read it, or forgot about it?

> Clack clacking sounds are not sufficient

737 captains tell me it is. The wheels are also painted black & white so their movement is easily seen, as it's right there next to the pilot. How much more obvious do you require it to be?

> Assuming that pilots would just turn off the system is not sufficient.

Turning off misbehaving systems is the bulk of emergency procedure training.

> seems zany to me

It would seem zany to anyone who knows only about the popular media narrative.

I've also gotten emails from pilots who told me I had it exactly right.

As for myself, I worked on the 757 stabilizer trim gearbox design. At one point, I knew about everything there was to know about it. The 757 system is not identical to the 737 one, but the method of dealing with runaway trim is the same - turn the mofo off. It's why there's a switch prominently placed right there on the center console. Do you want to believe that pilots don't know what the switches on the center console are for? Do you want to fly with a captain who doesn't know what they're for? There's no excuse for a captain to not know what all the controls are for.

P.S. Why would a 737 captain open up and tell me the truth? I let them know who I am, and back it up with details of how it works that an investigative journalist would never know. Then they're happy to chat with me.

Re: Historians have an increasingly strong incentive to tell dramatic stories

#69

Post by rectang »

WalterBright wrote: post #68
jncfhnb wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who did not follow this in great detail, I don’t anyone claiming it was not possible to diagnose, merely that the signals towards it were very poor and that training for things was bad, and that the crews that experienced crashes had fewer safety features than typical western crews or something like that. Your position here seems zany to me. Clack clacking sounds are not sufficient. Assuming that pilots wo…

> I don’t anyone claiming it was not possible to diagnose I read many times that it was impossible to diagnose it as runaway stabilizer trim. > training for things was bad Stabilizer trim runaway is trained for. Pulling back the throttles for overspeed warning is trained for. > that the crews that experienced crashes had fewer safety features than typical western crews How would you explain not being able to handle r…

> I let them know who I am

It's striking to see an argument from authority, against the dominant narrative, deployed in service of dismissing those who purportedly aspire to "rewrite history to fit a narrative".

Re: Historians have an increasingly strong incentive to tell dramatic stories

#70

Post by chargingmarmot »

Tyler Cowen gave a great TED talk on a related topic: "Be suspicious of simple stories" (2009)

https://www.ted.com/talks/tyler_cowen_be_suspicious_of_simpl...

(Because it's such a great story I still remember the talk a decade later.)

"""

So if I'm thinking about this talk, I'm wondering, of course, what is it you take away from this talk? What story do you take away from Tyler Cowen?

One story you might be like the story of the quest. "Tyler was a man on a quest. Tyler came here, and he told us not to think so much in terms of stories." That would be a story you could tell about this talk. It would fit a pretty well-known pattern. You might remember it. You could tell it to other people. "This weird guy came, and he said, 'Don't think in terms of stories. Let me tell you what happened today!'" And you tell your story.

Another possibility is you might tell a story of rebirth. You might say, "I used to think too much in terms of stories but then I heard Tyler Cowen and now I think less in terms of stories!" That too is a narrative you will remember, you can tell to other people, and again, it may stick.

You also could tell a story of deep tragedy. "This guy Tyler Cowen came and he told us not to think in terms of stories, but all he could do was tell us stories about how other people think too much in terms of stories.

"""

Post reply on HN