Everyone has a theory of history which forms the lens through which they see the world. For most people this is based on half-remembered high school classes, pop culture like Saving Private Ryan or Game of Thrones, and other sources they encounter passively. For some it’s based on a deliberate study of what happened in the past and why. Since the Renaissance, the deliberate study of history has been considered a core part of the liberal arts—that is, the craft of living as a free man. This is because, if your understanding of history is received from some other person or group, then they also control your politics and your
Great article. I also believe that the study of history is very important. I majored in history, and though I never got a job in the field, it really helped me understand the world.
I would like to add a few points to your list.
1) Rather than focusing on names, dates, and events, focus on trends over long periods of history. Once you understand the trends, all the little details become more understandable.
2) I also think that it is important to focus on constraints, for example, geography and technology.
I developed a handy "cheat sheet" that I think makes both of the above easier to grasp. I hope that you and your readers find it memorable:
The essence of Chin's claim, as I remember it, is that learning from history is less about learning strict if-then lessons (if I am in the situation which Gandhi was, I should do what Gandhi did to get Gandhi's results) and more about developing intuitions and instantiations for concepts which are inherently based in history (if I am in the situation that Gandhi was, one of the things that I can do is what Gandhi did; this thing is called altruism). These intuitions and instantiations further ground the concepts and make them more practically useful. In the same way that case studies are studied in business.
Now, connecting these ideas with your article: these intuitions and instantiations subconsciously contribute to much of one's thinking about the world—a 'theory of history'. When one thinks about altruism, one can either:
1. intuitively reference a historical example based on a primary source which discussed Gandhi
2. or they can intuitively reference some random TikTok video about how their favorite celebrity was altruistic.
When these concepts arise in one's thinking patterns 100s of times a day, the effects of having solid instantiations compound.
I would be curious to hear about whether or not this connection aligns with your thinking.
Great article. I also believe that the study of history is very important. I majored in history, and though I never got a job in the field, it really helped me understand the world.
I would like to add a few points to your list.
1) Rather than focusing on names, dates, and events, focus on trends over long periods of history. Once you understand the trends, all the little details become more understandable.
2) I also think that it is important to focus on constraints, for example, geography and technology.
I developed a handy "cheat sheet" that I think makes both of the above easier to grasp. I hope that you and your readers find it memorable:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/all-of-human-history-in-one-graphic
Interesting read.
I wonder how much of your thinking about 'theories of history' in the introduction overlaps with this piece by Cedric Chin: https://commoncog.com/dont-read-history-for-lessons/
The essence of Chin's claim, as I remember it, is that learning from history is less about learning strict if-then lessons (if I am in the situation which Gandhi was, I should do what Gandhi did to get Gandhi's results) and more about developing intuitions and instantiations for concepts which are inherently based in history (if I am in the situation that Gandhi was, one of the things that I can do is what Gandhi did; this thing is called altruism). These intuitions and instantiations further ground the concepts and make them more practically useful. In the same way that case studies are studied in business.
Now, connecting these ideas with your article: these intuitions and instantiations subconsciously contribute to much of one's thinking about the world—a 'theory of history'. When one thinks about altruism, one can either:
1. intuitively reference a historical example based on a primary source which discussed Gandhi
2. or they can intuitively reference some random TikTok video about how their favorite celebrity was altruistic.
When these concepts arise in one's thinking patterns 100s of times a day, the effects of having solid instantiations compound.
I would be curious to hear about whether or not this connection aligns with your thinking.