* Goes on to judge a youtube channel solely by the starting image.
FWIF, Grey is by far my favorite YouTuber. His stuff is very well researched, well edited, concise and funny. And the fun fact is that I first noticed him when his video on the relationship between the countries on the british isles was posted in this forum. I've also repeatedly used some of his videos on the Popular Science thread and they have been very well received. His stuff is great.
We have a whole panel we do regularly at conventions where we tell people specifically to judge books by their covers
"The problem with judging things by their covers is sometimes you get it wrong, you can usually tell you're getting it wrong when intelligent people, usually on our forum, or people you trust on twitter, tell you you're wrong." - Hosts of geeknights, Judge Anime by it's Cover, AB2016
What is CGPGrey's position here? It sounds interesting.
Keep in mind that I'm omitting a lot of the details for brevity(Considering that his own explination on his podcast took the better part of 15 minutes), but he wants an overarching "Theory of history" that explains history in a broad sense, or for someone to explain to him why such a thing can't exist. People have tried the latter, but he tends to argue his way out of it.
I'll admit, General relativity may not have been a good comparison, I'm not knowledgeable enough about physics to make a better one.
I don't see how, yet I've only heard one side in this debate, and it's his. Care to point me in the right direction?
Well, that's the thing, there's not really a debate, he's just wrong. He's looking at history as a set thing - which it tends to be - like his own specialty topic, physics, while forgetting that what we think of as history is just the aftermath of uncountable variables coming together in time.
For example, we can examine in detail the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand, we can see all the points that lead to it, the conspirators, the aftermath. But that's just how things came together at the time. What if, hundreds of years before, a Serb had failed to assassinate the Ottoman sultan, and thus changed the day the Black Hand were aiming for? What if the gun had misfired, or the assassin missed his mark? History would be different, because the variables that led to those points were different. History is not neat, like physics or math, history is messy and strange.
Also, to make something entirely clear - I really like CGPGrey's videos. His youtube stuff is really great, he's not a bad dude by any means, but sometimes listening to him and the way he carries on during his podcasts can be absolutely fucking infuriating.
What is CGPGrey's position here? It sounds interesting.
Keep in mind that I'm omitting a lot of the details for brevity(Considering that his own explination on his podcast took the better part of 15 minutes), but he wants an overarching "Theory of history" that explains history in a broad sense, or for someone to explain to him why such a thing can't exist. People have tried the latter, but he tends to argue his way out of it.
I'll admit, General relativity may not have been a good comparison, I'm not knowledgeable enough about physics to make a better one.
I don't see how, yet I've only heard one side in this debate, and it's his. Care to point me in the right direction?
Well, that's the thing, there's not really a debate, he's just wrong. He's looking at history as a set thing - which it tends to be - like his own specialty topic, physics, while forgetting that what we think of as history is just the aftermath of uncountable variables coming together in time.
For example, we can examine in detail the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand, we can see all the points that lead to it, the conspirators, the aftermath. But that's just how things came together at the time. What if, hundreds of years before, a Serb had failed to assassinate the Ottoman sultan, and thus changed the day the Black Hand were aiming for? What if the gun had misfired, or the assassin missed his mark? History would be different, because the variables that led to those points were different. History is not neat, like physics or math, history is messy and strange.
Also, to make something entirely clear - I really like CGPGrey's videos. His youtube stuff is really great, he's not a bad dude by any means, but sometimes listening to him and the way he carries on during his podcasts can be absolutely fucking infuriating.
History has so many "what-ifs" and chance occurrences it's not even funny. The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand is predicated on so many unpredictable chances. Frankly the Archduke should have pulled a GTFO after the first assassination attempt, but no, he wanted to look like a man of the people, so he was going to the hospital that some victims of the attack had been brought to. Only his driver was not a local and couldn't read a map to save his life. So they finally stopped to get directions, outside a sandwhich shop where luck, bad for the Austrians but good for our last player, Gavrilo Princip was enjoying a late lunch. Armed only with his boldness and a pistol he leaped into action! And the rest, as we know, is history.
What if Adolf Hitler had been accepted to art school? What if he hadn't been accepted but ultimately had stayed in Austria and been drafted into their army instead of Germany's? What if he hadn't lived with extremely antisemitic people? What if he had died in the gas attack that hospitalized him?
Too much of history is just chance. You can't write a theory to predict any of it.
Grey wants a broadstrokes theory, not something that really explains the weeds. It's why he likes Guns, Germs, and Steel; it makes an argument that, based primarily on the ecology of the world, it was more likely that Eurasian civilizations would become the dominant type of civilization in the world. That's the kind of thing he is trying to get people to have a conversation about. A more recognizable example would probably by the Great Man theory of history, which espouses the idea that history can be explained by the impact of "great men" over anything else.
Didn't we just discuss how the recent achaeological dig of the Bronze Age battle near the bridge is direct contradictory evidence to Guns, Germs, and Steel?
Didn't we just discuss how the recent achaeological dig of the Bronze Age battle near the bridge is direct contradictory evidence to Guns, Germs, and Steel?
Yes, but I don't think he's a listener.
And he's been doing the same thing when people try and convince him that Guns, Germs and Steel isn't that great of a history book.
Man, we need Amp up in here. Brother knows history like a teenage boy knows wanking.
OK, having now read Grey's position on this, one thing I'll say is that "theory of history" is a horribly misleading term for what he actually seems to be talking about. In the end, he's asking the question "given the world 10000 years ago, how likely is it that the first global empire arises from Eurasia / Africa / Australia / America?". Grey is arguing—on the basis of several of the core ideas of Guns, Germs, and Steel—that Eurasia would have been a significantly better bet than the other continents.
Although it's extremely stupid to refer to answers to the above question as a "theory of history", I don't see anything inherently wrong with the question itself. Another closely related (and also interesting) historical question is "why did Western Europe come to dominate the world?"
I also don't see what the problem is with his question. He's not even arguing for a position, just asking why so many historians are arguing against such a question.
"History is just random events" is deeply unsatisfying to me too. But I don't care enough to argue about it online. I do, however, care about it enough to write a book demonstrating the opposite, though that isn't even remotely the main focus.
OK, having now read Grey's position on this, one thing I'll say is that "theory of history" is a horribly misleading term for what he actually seems to be talking about.
It's pretty much the exact words he used on the episode of Hello Internet that it was bought up - It was either "Theory of history" or "Grand Unified theory of history". I haven't read what he's written about it, because the only thing I'd heard about it outside of the podcast was that he'd argued with some people on reddit, which I didn't care enough to read because reddit arguments are quickly pretty boring, unless they're really weird or drama filled.
I don't know, but I suspect what he's written came after said podcast, when people took issue with it and with Guns, Germs and Steel - when he was speaking about it, I don't recall him arguing for Eurasia being a better bet, that was discussed as a separate issue.
But, I could be mis-remembering. Not going to pretend my memory is perfect. I don't remember the exact podcast, but I'm pretty sure it was Pre-flag referendum, both NZ and Hello Internet flag referendum. I think it might have been in January, and I know GGS definitely came up in the conversation. I don't think he was arguing with Brady about it, I think he was relating how people couldn't tell him why there shouldn't be a unified theory of history.
(Edit - Mildly annoyed with myself, I should have gone with Unified field theory instead of the theory of relativity with my original reference. Bloody idiot.)
I also don't see what the problem is with his question. He's not even arguing for a position, just asking why so many historians are arguing against such a question.
We're a little off in the weeds here - the point I was making was not that it's a stupid question(It's not, it's quite a good question), the irritating part is that when he gets an answer he doesn't like, he argues his way out of it and returns to his default position that there should be one/nobody can really tell him why there isn't one.
"History is just random events" is deeply unsatisfying to me too. But I don't care enough to argue about it online. I do, however, care about it enough to write a book demonstrating the opposite, though that isn't even remotely the main focus.
Well, it's not really - history is not random events, history is how all all these things came together from the available possibilities. Some of it is random chance - insofar as anything is random - some of it isn't. Not so much a single thread, as a web all coming together into the present. Taking out or changing one intersection of the web changes it - sometimes significantly, sometimes not - but doesn't destroy the web.
OK, having now read Grey's position on this, one thing I'll say is that "theory of history" is a horribly misleading term for what he actually seems to be talking about.
It's pretty much the exact words he used on the episode of Hello Internet that it was bought up - It was either "Theory of history" or "Grand Unified theory of history". I haven't read what he's written about it, because the only thing I'd heard about it outside of the podcast was that he'd argued with some people on reddit, which I didn't care enough to read because reddit arguments are quickly pretty boring, unless they're really weird or drama filled.
I don't know, but I suspect what he's written came after said podcast, when people took issue with it and with Guns, Germs and Steel - when he was speaking about it, I don't recall him arguing for Eurasia being a better bet, that was discussed as a separate issue.
But, I could be mis-remembering. Not going to pretend my memory is perfect. I don't remember the exact podcast, but I'm pretty sure it was Pre-flag referendum, both NZ and Hello Internet flag referendum. I think it might have been in January, and I know GGS definitely came up in the conversation. I don't think he was arguing with Brady about it, I think he was relating how people couldn't tell him why there shouldn't be a unified theory of history.
(Edit - Mildly annoyed with myself, I should have gone with Unified field theory instead of the theory of relativity with my original reference. Bloody idiot.)
To be clear, I've taken the time to listen to the relevant segments of the podcast episodes. The original discussion is in episode 56 (which is titled Guns, Germs and Steel), and there is additional followup in episode 59. Note also that the ep56 discussion follows his Youtube video on "Americapox".
Yes, Grey himself is to blame for the term "theory of history". I don't know why he's using the term, but it does make it seem like he's taking a very reductive view of what "history" is about.
As for the particular question of whether Eurasia is a better bet, he definitely does stake out that position, although he has said he is interested in alternative answers to that same question.
I also don't see what the problem is with his question. He's not even arguing for a position, just asking why so many historians are arguing against such a question.
We're a little off in the weeds here - the point I was making was not that it's a stupid question(It's not, it's quite a good question), the irritating part is that when he gets an answer he doesn't like, he argues his way out of it and returns to his default position that there should be one/nobody can really tell him why there isn't one.
Although there is evidence for that tendency, in this instance Grey's issue seems to be that people aren't really addressing what he sees as the core question. It's hard to blame him for being unconvinced by discussions where people are talking past one another.
Although there is evidence for that tendency, in this instance Grey's issue seems to be that people aren't really addressing what he sees as the core question. It's hard to blame him for being unconvinced by discussions where people are talking past one another.
Fair call. And I'll definitely admit to not picking the best example, it's just the first and (at the time) clearest example of that behavior that came to mind immediately - the original aim was to point to a behavior and an example that wouldn't be interpreted like I was picking on Scott, so didn't really consider it as fully as maybe I should have.
Yes, Grey himself is to blame for the term "theory of history". I don't know why he's using the term, but it does make it seem like he's taking a very reductive view of what "history" is about.
I think what he was trying to do was to treat history like his own specialty topic, and run a kind of simulation of history in the same way you can with physics, where you can tweak the variables, and predictably get different outcomes - but (At the time) probably not knowing or considering why History can't really be simulated in that manner, possibly not realizing that what he's asking is more of a question of the philosophy of history, rather than the subject itself.
As for the particular question of whether Eurasia is a better bet, he definitely does stake out that position, although he has said he is interested in alternative answers to that same question.
And unfortunately, not a topic I'm even remotely equipped to debate or provide any sort of reasonable answer on, world history is somewhat of a weak point.
In this podcast there was a discussion of desired punishments for bike thieves which led to the idea of a bicycle honeypot with built-in immediate and severe punishment.
Comments
* Goes on to judge a youtube channel solely by the starting image.
FWIF, Grey is by far my favorite YouTuber. His stuff is very well researched, well edited, concise and funny. And the fun fact is that I first noticed him when his video on the relationship between the countries on the british isles was posted in this forum. I've also repeatedly used some of his videos on the Popular Science thread and they have been very well received. His stuff is great.
I'll admit, General relativity may not have been a good comparison, I'm not knowledgeable enough about physics to make a better one. Well, that's the thing, there's not really a debate, he's just wrong. He's looking at history as a set thing - which it tends to be - like his own specialty topic, physics, while forgetting that what we think of as history is just the aftermath of uncountable variables coming together in time.
For example, we can examine in detail the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand, we can see all the points that lead to it, the conspirators, the aftermath. But that's just how things came together at the time. What if, hundreds of years before, a Serb had failed to assassinate the Ottoman sultan, and thus changed the day the Black Hand were aiming for? What if the gun had misfired, or the assassin missed his mark? History would be different, because the variables that led to those points were different. History is not neat, like physics or math, history is messy and strange.
Also, to make something entirely clear - I really like CGPGrey's videos. His youtube stuff is really great, he's not a bad dude by any means, but sometimes listening to him and the way he carries on during his podcasts can be absolutely fucking infuriating.
What if Adolf Hitler had been accepted to art school? What if he hadn't been accepted but ultimately had stayed in Austria and been drafted into their army instead of Germany's? What if he hadn't lived with extremely antisemitic people? What if he had died in the gas attack that hospitalized him?
Too much of history is just chance. You can't write a theory to predict any of it.
And he's been doing the same thing when people try and convince him that Guns, Germs and Steel isn't that great of a history book.
Man, we need Amp up in here. Brother knows history like a teenage boy knows wanking.
Although it's extremely stupid to refer to answers to the above question as a "theory of history", I don't see anything inherently wrong with the question itself. Another closely related (and also interesting) historical question is "why did Western Europe come to dominate the world?"
"History is just random events" is deeply unsatisfying to me too. But I don't care enough to argue about it online. I do, however, care about it enough to write a book demonstrating the opposite, though that isn't even remotely the main focus.
I don't know, but I suspect what he's written came after said podcast, when people took issue with it and with Guns, Germs and Steel - when he was speaking about it, I don't recall him arguing for Eurasia being a better bet, that was discussed as a separate issue.
But, I could be mis-remembering. Not going to pretend my memory is perfect. I don't remember the exact podcast, but I'm pretty sure it was Pre-flag referendum, both NZ and Hello Internet flag referendum. I think it might have been in January, and I know GGS definitely came up in the conversation. I don't think he was arguing with Brady about it, I think he was relating how people couldn't tell him why there shouldn't be a unified theory of history.
(Edit - Mildly annoyed with myself, I should have gone with Unified field theory instead of the theory of relativity with my original reference. Bloody idiot.) We're a little off in the weeds here - the point I was making was not that it's a stupid question(It's not, it's quite a good question), the irritating part is that when he gets an answer he doesn't like, he argues his way out of it and returns to his default position that there should be one/nobody can really tell him why there isn't one. Well, it's not really - history is not random events, history is how all all these things came together from the available possibilities. Some of it is random chance - insofar as anything is random - some of it isn't. Not so much a single thread, as a web all coming together into the present. Taking out or changing one intersection of the web changes it - sometimes significantly, sometimes not - but doesn't destroy the web.
Yes, Grey himself is to blame for the term "theory of history". I don't know why he's using the term, but it does make it seem like he's taking a very reductive view of what "history" is about.
As for the particular question of whether Eurasia is a better bet, he definitely does stake out that position, although he has said he is interested in alternative answers to that same question. Although there is evidence for that tendency, in this instance Grey's issue seems to be that people aren't really addressing what he sees as the core question. It's hard to blame him for being unconvinced by discussions where people are talking past one another.
I give you, exhibit A:
exhibit B:
and exhibit C: