BS? And yet humans are defined by nature and nurture? Histories rarely touch on the nurture. When we, I hope, have Donald Trump firmly behind us, will we remember him as a monolith unto himself?...
BS? And yet humans are defined by nature and nurture? Histories rarely touch on the nurture.
When we, I hope, have Donald Trump firmly behind us, will we remember him as a monolith unto himself? Or instead as the product of a troubled father with too much money who passed on and cultivated numerous issues in his son.
We do this already, don't we? Looking back further, to when media wasn't 24/7, it must become harder to puzzle out external influences.
We seem to see it somewhat similarly. RE: Trump, while we can observe him in the "now", we aren't able to know his intent; we can't read his mind (leaving his relatives aside who gain by...
We seem to see it somewhat similarly.
RE: Trump, while we can observe him in the "now", we aren't able to know his intent; we can't read his mind (leaving his relatives aside who gain by attempting to plumb his past from the sideline). It's why journalists talk about "falsehoods" versus "lies", right? Because we can't truly know intent.
Exploring what we can of individual and societal natures, along multiple axis, offers the possibility of narrowing the scope of possible and likely intents, no?
"History" attempts to define the why based on a narrow perspective on the biology, psyche, and culture of individuals and societies. A sociological/psychogicial/anthropological exploration offers the possibility of identifying and/or further exploring possibilities.
Is objectivity here challenging? Definitely. Is it worth considering? If we don't become trapped by the narrative possibilities, why not? There are further opportunities to learn.
I'll assume @serafin is an Asimov fan? I like Asimov too, but I haven't read the psychohistory novels. If I had to make a criticism, I would say that I'm not a fan of the excessive proliferation...
I'll assume @serafin is an Asimov fan? I like Asimov too, but I haven't read the psychohistory novels.
If I had to make a criticism, I would say that I'm not a fan of the excessive proliferation of subfields, subgenres, etc. Sometimes the addition of a new category doesn't seem useful. That is not a determination I can make based on a Wikipedia article, but Michel Foucault's work might be an antecedent of this with his History of Sexuality, The Birth of the Clinic, Discipline and Punish, etc. As well as several works within history, philosophy, anthropology, etc.
The odd nomenclature and the association with fiction may give the impression that this is an unworthy field, but the article presents a compelling example in the history of our understanding of childhood, along with how we model children's minds and inner world. A historiography of our own ideas concerning the mind, and the consequences of those ideas, seems like a worthy effort.
I don't mean any insult to the OP. I'm not a moderator. I don't think a fictional science from a sci-fi novel, that was not therapeutic belongs in a section about mental health. I enjoyed the...
I don't mean any insult to the OP. I'm not a moderator. I don't think a fictional science from a sci-fi novel, that was not therapeutic belongs in a section about mental health.
I enjoyed the books though. The first season of the series too. I watch to watch the second season.
BS? And yet humans are defined by nature and nurture? Histories rarely touch on the nurture.
When we, I hope, have Donald Trump firmly behind us, will we remember him as a monolith unto himself? Or instead as the product of a troubled father with too much money who passed on and cultivated numerous issues in his son.
We do this already, don't we? Looking back further, to when media wasn't 24/7, it must become harder to puzzle out external influences.
To quote Dr House, "Patients lie."
We seem to see it somewhat similarly.
RE: Trump, while we can observe him in the "now", we aren't able to know his intent; we can't read his mind (leaving his relatives aside who gain by attempting to plumb his past from the sideline). It's why journalists talk about "falsehoods" versus "lies", right? Because we can't truly know intent.
Exploring what we can of individual and societal natures, along multiple axis, offers the possibility of narrowing the scope of possible and likely intents, no?
"History" attempts to define the why based on a narrow perspective on the biology, psyche, and culture of individuals and societies. A sociological/psychogicial/anthropological exploration offers the possibility of identifying and/or further exploring possibilities.
Is objectivity here challenging? Definitely. Is it worth considering? If we don't become trapped by the narrative possibilities, why not? There are further opportunities to learn.
It seems that someone tried to make Asimov's psychohistory real? I couldn't tell if they ever acknowledged that they got it from science fiction.
I'll assume @serafin is an Asimov fan? I like Asimov too, but I haven't read the psychohistory novels.
If I had to make a criticism, I would say that I'm not a fan of the excessive proliferation of subfields, subgenres, etc. Sometimes the addition of a new category doesn't seem useful. That is not a determination I can make based on a Wikipedia article, but Michel Foucault's work might be an antecedent of this with his History of Sexuality, The Birth of the Clinic, Discipline and Punish, etc. As well as several works within history, philosophy, anthropology, etc.
The odd nomenclature and the association with fiction may give the impression that this is an unworthy field, but the article presents a compelling example in the history of our understanding of childhood, along with how we model children's minds and inner world. A historiography of our own ideas concerning the mind, and the consequences of those ideas, seems like a worthy effort.
I don't mean any insult to the OP. I'm not a moderator. I don't think a fictional science from a sci-fi novel, that was not therapeutic belongs in a section about mental health.
I enjoyed the books though. The first season of the series too. I watch to watch the second season.
I moved it to ~humanities, since it seems much more relevant there than ~health.mental, IMO.
I don't necessarily disagree but the article is not about Asimov's psicohistory.