Zen and the Art of Historical Study
Posted: Wed May 22, 2024 9:39 pm
Let's start at the beginning.
What are we doing here?
There are lots of different reasons people can come to be involved in the study of the subject. This can be nice because it means that there's a lot of people that you can interact with on the subject. It also can cause a lot of discord because people who have different purposes often end up irreconcilably at odds with each other in how they view the subject.
Let's use the words "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" to categorize them.
Extrinsic motivators are goal-oriented. Consider some topic of "controversy X and the Bible" for example. Someone who wants to communicate a position on this topic to influence others is goal-oriented. They may then organize information around the topic in order to convince others that it is true. Maybe the goal is to reduce bigotry. Being goal oriented can be noble and conducted truthfully.
Intrinsic motivators are their own reward. Think of the buzz that someone might get when an idea clicks into place for the first time. The feeling of cleverness when presenting an ingenious hypothesis. The pleasure of reading some source that one had not encountered before. Or even just the comfortable familiarity of revisiting again some favorite passage or perspective.
I will focus on intrinsic motivations.
Zero Feedback Loops
In some subjects, we're able to get immediate feedback on our progress and how well we're doing. If you lose a chess game, you can think back to when your position started giving you less opportunities or when you lost material. If you lose in a sporting event, the possession of the ball and points scored gives immediate feedback. Even in areas where you might not actually develop real skill, such as betting on horses or trading stock options, you can get feedback to tell you whether you're actually doing better or not.
That feedback loop is diminished if you have to wait years for a result, such as making long term predictions as a pundit. It's perhaps not surprising that meta studies of pundits do not find them any more reliable than predicting that everything will stay the same.
Then there are zero feedback situations. The best way to understand statements about this subject is that they are made in a zero feedback situation. Whatever you say, you will not have a chance to be proven wrong.
This isn't a happy situation. Feedback is valuable. Without it, we don't have any easy way to tell how well we're doing. We also don't have a justification to describe what we're doing as being in the same category as science. That's ok. I don't think it is science.
But, wait! Someone might say. Don't we sometimes find new artifacts in history? Isn't that feedback? Not meaningfully.
(1) We don't get new information after forming our hypothesis. There's a chance new relevant information turns up before we die and a chance that it doesn't at all. Therefore there's no feedback loop. We're not learning how to get better at what we're doing from this new data.
(2) Past finds are incorporated into the body of available data, which becomes just as stale and incapable of providing feedback as the one that came before it. The more you study, the more impossible it is for data to surprise you and provide real feedback.
So it's impossible to become more skillful in a natural way, of seeing where you made mistakes and correcting based on feedback from previously unseen data, the way you would if you were playing a sport, playing chess, or coming up with a hypothesis in a scientific field where you can run an experiment if you have the funding.
So, anything goes?
If it's not a scientific subject, and if we're intrinsically motivated, why not just say anything goes? Perhaps we will just play ideas one off against the other, none the better, none the worse. Perhaps that will let us come up with ideas that are more interesting, even? And some people are, I think, most comfortable in this kind of headspace.
I assume that there was a single, actual past that has led up to this point. On this assumption, there is a rich web of connections among the events of the past, cause and effect cascading onto cause and effect, telling a story that I want to learn more about. The most interesting and most detailed story possible to me is the one that is closest to the truth of the past. Why is that?
The more that the model of the past that we're using differs from the actual past, the fewer detailed, meaningful, and satisfying connections that we're able to make between the remains of the past and that model. Suppose that we're hopping on board with phantom time hypotheses, or thinking that all the classics were written in the middle ages, or coming up with some other idea that might sound interesting in the abstract (but seems divorced from reality). The description of the outline of this idea might sound exciting, but trying to piece it together with the remains of the past is dreary. A typical model of the past has a less jazzy outline, but it will make for a more enriching experience of reading those classics and making connections. We can understand each text better, how each relates to the previous, and how they relate to their historical context. That process of understanding can bring greater and more meaningful satisfaction.
Or suppose that we've made an error. Then we find some things that seem puzzling to us if what we previously assumed is true. It can be hard to notice this, of course. But when we do, refuting ourselves can be one of the most interesting exercises we can do here. Not only does it resolve those puzzlers, but having this point in mind can lead to other connections. And being closer to the truth is more likely to lead to other meaningful connections being discovered because you're tapping into that graph of the truth of the past that produced everything that remained of it.
Staying on the surface where all ideas are equal doesn't quite yield the same rewards. There are many ideas that might appear to link up well with a few points of data about the past but which don't repay much further thought. But if you're able to tug on those threads that lead into the truth of the past, that's where you'll start finding other things lining up in the most satisfying way.
The self as the measure of all things
Not everyone is comfortable with thinking of their own self as a contributor to the product of their study. They may be studying the wrong field. I can suggest mathematics as an alternative.
What are some of the verbs of historical study? Consider these two:
To interpret. Whether texts or material culture, interpretation is required.
To explain. Explanations appeal to our intuition about what would make sense.
If we're intrinsically motivated to study history, we know that this isn't a bad thing. Part of the appeal of history is that it allows us to engage in this kind of activity - interpreting and explaining - on a rich tapestry of source material. If we tried to eliminate the human and the subjective from history, we'd also eliminate essential parts of what makes it an activity that people like to engage in.
There is a subjective element to interpretation and explanation. Our attitude towards a person for example could affect how we interpret their behavior. If we don't like someone overall, we're more likely to fault someone personally for something that they do, but if we're friendly towards them we're more likely to write it down to a mistake if we don't like something that they do.
Because there is this human element involved, it makes sense to consider one's self as a contributor to the product of their study. Changes in attitude can result in shifts in what explanations someone perceives as more plausible and what interpretations someone considers more accurate.
We're often degrading ourselves and others
If we are denying the role of the self in historical study, it is not possible to perceive such study as an occasion with the opportunity for self-improvement. And such study may often be an occasion of one's own personal detriment. Consider whether you have ever seen any of these 16 things in one's self or others:
I'm not sure that anyone has to undertake any kind of historical study. But if they are to do so, a good first step to minimizing harm, to one's own self or to others involved, while participating in historical study would be to recognize that there is a subjective element to this study. That is meaningless, of course, unless it turns inward. It applies to my interpretations, explanations, and judgments.
Historical study and self-improvement
The subject of this forum is especially capable of creating these kinds of entanglements and failings due to the many different ways in which one can be influenced. There can be a particularly complex intersection of controversies, personal history, community history, intellectual development, political and religious development, literary aesthetics, attitudes, distastes, preferences, allegiances, disavowals, grudges, disappointments, and interpersonal judgments that can all converge on this subject. We are all entangled in multiple ways when thinking about these topics whether we acknowledge it or not.
As mentioned, there is no actionable and objective feedback loop that will consistently tell you if you're incorrect when you're studying these things. But in many ways what you are producing as the result of this study - whatever you think about expressing on the basis of it - is at least partly a reflection on your own self at a moment in time. This provides room for introspection.
As mentioned, I'm not sure that anyone has to undertake any kind of historical study. It is rife with opportunity for the kind of problems just listed above. It can be considered whether it would be better to withdraw from it.
If it is undertaken, then self reflection is possible. A better understanding of one's own self and one's own failings when trying to study the topic is possible, even if an immediate feedback loop based on the ostensible topic is not. It might even possibly be a path to self-improvement precisely because it is such a difficult and fraught topic. Add in the additional complications of discussing it publicly in an open forum, and it can be a constant lesson in one's own faults, whether avoided or indulged. It is by avoiding them that we improve.
What was that?
A lot of what gets expressed as study happens without an explicit context. Why do it? What to think about while doing it? What are you doing? What are the pitfalls? I don't believe that I have articulated these questions quite so clearly before, and I haven't really found anything addressing them either. So these are my notes when I attempted to think about these questions more clearly. If you can think of anything that has discussed this kind of thing before, or if you have your own thoughts, please feel free to share them.
What are we doing here?
There are lots of different reasons people can come to be involved in the study of the subject. This can be nice because it means that there's a lot of people that you can interact with on the subject. It also can cause a lot of discord because people who have different purposes often end up irreconcilably at odds with each other in how they view the subject.
Let's use the words "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" to categorize them.
Extrinsic motivators are goal-oriented. Consider some topic of "controversy X and the Bible" for example. Someone who wants to communicate a position on this topic to influence others is goal-oriented. They may then organize information around the topic in order to convince others that it is true. Maybe the goal is to reduce bigotry. Being goal oriented can be noble and conducted truthfully.
Intrinsic motivators are their own reward. Think of the buzz that someone might get when an idea clicks into place for the first time. The feeling of cleverness when presenting an ingenious hypothesis. The pleasure of reading some source that one had not encountered before. Or even just the comfortable familiarity of revisiting again some favorite passage or perspective.
I will focus on intrinsic motivations.
Zero Feedback Loops
In some subjects, we're able to get immediate feedback on our progress and how well we're doing. If you lose a chess game, you can think back to when your position started giving you less opportunities or when you lost material. If you lose in a sporting event, the possession of the ball and points scored gives immediate feedback. Even in areas where you might not actually develop real skill, such as betting on horses or trading stock options, you can get feedback to tell you whether you're actually doing better or not.
That feedback loop is diminished if you have to wait years for a result, such as making long term predictions as a pundit. It's perhaps not surprising that meta studies of pundits do not find them any more reliable than predicting that everything will stay the same.
Then there are zero feedback situations. The best way to understand statements about this subject is that they are made in a zero feedback situation. Whatever you say, you will not have a chance to be proven wrong.
This isn't a happy situation. Feedback is valuable. Without it, we don't have any easy way to tell how well we're doing. We also don't have a justification to describe what we're doing as being in the same category as science. That's ok. I don't think it is science.
But, wait! Someone might say. Don't we sometimes find new artifacts in history? Isn't that feedback? Not meaningfully.
(1) We don't get new information after forming our hypothesis. There's a chance new relevant information turns up before we die and a chance that it doesn't at all. Therefore there's no feedback loop. We're not learning how to get better at what we're doing from this new data.
(2) Past finds are incorporated into the body of available data, which becomes just as stale and incapable of providing feedback as the one that came before it. The more you study, the more impossible it is for data to surprise you and provide real feedback.
So it's impossible to become more skillful in a natural way, of seeing where you made mistakes and correcting based on feedback from previously unseen data, the way you would if you were playing a sport, playing chess, or coming up with a hypothesis in a scientific field where you can run an experiment if you have the funding.
So, anything goes?
If it's not a scientific subject, and if we're intrinsically motivated, why not just say anything goes? Perhaps we will just play ideas one off against the other, none the better, none the worse. Perhaps that will let us come up with ideas that are more interesting, even? And some people are, I think, most comfortable in this kind of headspace.
I assume that there was a single, actual past that has led up to this point. On this assumption, there is a rich web of connections among the events of the past, cause and effect cascading onto cause and effect, telling a story that I want to learn more about. The most interesting and most detailed story possible to me is the one that is closest to the truth of the past. Why is that?
The more that the model of the past that we're using differs from the actual past, the fewer detailed, meaningful, and satisfying connections that we're able to make between the remains of the past and that model. Suppose that we're hopping on board with phantom time hypotheses, or thinking that all the classics were written in the middle ages, or coming up with some other idea that might sound interesting in the abstract (but seems divorced from reality). The description of the outline of this idea might sound exciting, but trying to piece it together with the remains of the past is dreary. A typical model of the past has a less jazzy outline, but it will make for a more enriching experience of reading those classics and making connections. We can understand each text better, how each relates to the previous, and how they relate to their historical context. That process of understanding can bring greater and more meaningful satisfaction.
Or suppose that we've made an error. Then we find some things that seem puzzling to us if what we previously assumed is true. It can be hard to notice this, of course. But when we do, refuting ourselves can be one of the most interesting exercises we can do here. Not only does it resolve those puzzlers, but having this point in mind can lead to other connections. And being closer to the truth is more likely to lead to other meaningful connections being discovered because you're tapping into that graph of the truth of the past that produced everything that remained of it.
Staying on the surface where all ideas are equal doesn't quite yield the same rewards. There are many ideas that might appear to link up well with a few points of data about the past but which don't repay much further thought. But if you're able to tug on those threads that lead into the truth of the past, that's where you'll start finding other things lining up in the most satisfying way.
The self as the measure of all things
Not everyone is comfortable with thinking of their own self as a contributor to the product of their study. They may be studying the wrong field. I can suggest mathematics as an alternative.
What are some of the verbs of historical study? Consider these two:
To interpret. Whether texts or material culture, interpretation is required.
To explain. Explanations appeal to our intuition about what would make sense.
If we're intrinsically motivated to study history, we know that this isn't a bad thing. Part of the appeal of history is that it allows us to engage in this kind of activity - interpreting and explaining - on a rich tapestry of source material. If we tried to eliminate the human and the subjective from history, we'd also eliminate essential parts of what makes it an activity that people like to engage in.
There is a subjective element to interpretation and explanation. Our attitude towards a person for example could affect how we interpret their behavior. If we don't like someone overall, we're more likely to fault someone personally for something that they do, but if we're friendly towards them we're more likely to write it down to a mistake if we don't like something that they do.
Because there is this human element involved, it makes sense to consider one's self as a contributor to the product of their study. Changes in attitude can result in shifts in what explanations someone perceives as more plausible and what interpretations someone considers more accurate.
We're often degrading ourselves and others
If we are denying the role of the self in historical study, it is not possible to perceive such study as an occasion with the opportunity for self-improvement. And such study may often be an occasion of one's own personal detriment. Consider whether you have ever seen any of these 16 things in one's self or others:
- Covetousness
- Ill-will
- Anger
- Hostility
- Contempt
- Insolence
- Envy
- Avarice
- Deceit
- Fraud
- Obstinacy
- Rivalry
- Conceit
- Arrogance
- Vanity
- Negligence
I'm not sure that anyone has to undertake any kind of historical study. But if they are to do so, a good first step to minimizing harm, to one's own self or to others involved, while participating in historical study would be to recognize that there is a subjective element to this study. That is meaningless, of course, unless it turns inward. It applies to my interpretations, explanations, and judgments.
Historical study and self-improvement
The subject of this forum is especially capable of creating these kinds of entanglements and failings due to the many different ways in which one can be influenced. There can be a particularly complex intersection of controversies, personal history, community history, intellectual development, political and religious development, literary aesthetics, attitudes, distastes, preferences, allegiances, disavowals, grudges, disappointments, and interpersonal judgments that can all converge on this subject. We are all entangled in multiple ways when thinking about these topics whether we acknowledge it or not.
As mentioned, there is no actionable and objective feedback loop that will consistently tell you if you're incorrect when you're studying these things. But in many ways what you are producing as the result of this study - whatever you think about expressing on the basis of it - is at least partly a reflection on your own self at a moment in time. This provides room for introspection.
As mentioned, I'm not sure that anyone has to undertake any kind of historical study. It is rife with opportunity for the kind of problems just listed above. It can be considered whether it would be better to withdraw from it.
If it is undertaken, then self reflection is possible. A better understanding of one's own self and one's own failings when trying to study the topic is possible, even if an immediate feedback loop based on the ostensible topic is not. It might even possibly be a path to self-improvement precisely because it is such a difficult and fraught topic. Add in the additional complications of discussing it publicly in an open forum, and it can be a constant lesson in one's own faults, whether avoided or indulged. It is by avoiding them that we improve.
What was that?
A lot of what gets expressed as study happens without an explicit context. Why do it? What to think about while doing it? What are you doing? What are the pitfalls? I don't believe that I have articulated these questions quite so clearly before, and I haven't really found anything addressing them either. So these are my notes when I attempted to think about these questions more clearly. If you can think of anything that has discussed this kind of thing before, or if you have your own thoughts, please feel free to share them.