Psychohistory

[Ellen Brown]

I wonder if Asimov's ideas about Psychohistory? It has been some years since I read "Foundation". Will it make sense?

 

[Sirona]

I wonder if Asimov's ideas about Psychohistory? It has been some years since I read "Foundation". Will it make sense?

Could you elaborate a bit more? I read the Foundation trilogy too, but I can't quite remember the concept of psychohistory. I do remember though, that history was altered in the trilogy due to the telepathic powers of The Mule.

 

[joe1776]

I wonder if Asimov's ideas about Psychohistory? It has been some years since I read "Foundation". Will it make sense?

I don't think current psychology is making much sense. Do you?

And, if current psychology can't explain current human behavior well, what chance does it have of explaining the behavior of earlier humans?

Or to put it another way, once we understand human behavior, the causes of historical events should become evident.

 

[David T]

I don't think current psychology is making much sense. Do you?

And, if current psychology can't explain current human behavior well, what chance does it have of explaining the behavior of earlier humans?

Or to put it another way, once we understand human behavior, the causes of historical events should become evident.

"I don't think current psychology is making much sense. Do you?

And, if current psychology can't explain current human behavior well, what chance does it have of explaining the behavior of earlier humans?"

ZERO!!!

My degree is in bronze age behavioralism or BAB, and it was nonsense. we would read bronze age texts try and interpret them and bring into alignment ones own behavior with what was interpreted.

Now modern psychology grew out of a "myth," that developed early, in that human behavior could be "scientifically" explained like "scientifically" was some magikal view of objectivity. The problem is psychology itself like BAB is not independent of human behavior.

BAB I discovered was a worthless tool in application to bronze age texts but a great psychology tool in application to historical development of a tiny region of neurology self labeled "higher functioning". (No evidence literally of that being true BTW) The degree is called by it's common name Theology. It's one of the first degrees at the oldest modern university the university of bologna 1088. It's nonsense.

 

[Duke_Leto]

Could you elaborate a bit more? I read the Foundation trilogy too, but I can't quite remember the concept of psychohistory. I do remember though, that history was altered in the trilogy due to the telepathic powers of The Mule.

I hope @Ellen Brown doesn't mind my answering first, but essentially the premise is that, given large enough numbers and accurate enough data, the course of the future can be generally mathematically/statistically predicted. To perform this accurately, the psychohistorian must have insight into the human psyche, and understand why historical figures acted as they did, or how historical events came about -- thus the 'psycho'. The Foundation series deals with the attempts of a psychohistorian to preserve knowledge through a collapse he forsees of the galactic civilization.

 

[David T]

I wonder if Asimov's ideas about Psychohistory? It has been some years since I read "Foundation". Will it make sense?

Well the problem Asminov ran into developing the concept was limitations and unintended consequences. It's in a sense looking towards a more "scientific" framework as a kind of guiding way of understanding that really actually fails not unlike my degree Theology. Where Theology takes a contemporary view projects is backwards to align behavior to ancient bronze age texts, Asminov flips that and projects the contemporary view forward into the future aligning behavior to what It believes to be a reasoned correct perspective will guide a proper outcome.


Hahaha.

Asminov was very interesting and very scientifically oriented but also understood scientific limitations which BTW seems invisible here on RF since most people aren't very good at understanding themselves or nature. He was one of my favorites from that generation of SF writers.

 

[David T]

I hope @Ellen Brown doesn't mind my answering first, but essentially the premise is that, given large enough numbers and accurate enough data, the course of the future can be generally mathematically/statistically predicted. To perform this accurately, the psychohistorian must have insight into the human psyche, and understand why historical figures acted as they did, or how historical events came about -- thus the 'psycho'. The Foundation series deals with the attempts of a psychohistorian to preserve knowledge through a collapse he forsees of the galactic civilization.

Of course it's Theology inverted. Where modernity is projected backwards Asminov projects it forward.

 

[WalterTrull]

I think the problems stem from Wanda's misuse of her Prime Radiant.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

My opinion:

Asimov was a logical positivist; psychohistory is Asimov's projection of the full application of logical positivism into society in the future, a future in which most in society aren't logical positivists.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Could you elaborate a bit more? I read the Foundation trilogy too, but I can't quite remember the concept of psychohistory. I do remember though, that history was altered in the trilogy due to the telepathic powers of The Mule.

I encountered the term on a Youtube Video about the Foundation Book. When I read it, there were three books, and now there are seven. I was using Kindle on my PC and now Amazon has done some tampering with the ap and made it unsuitable for my use. If I can find a way to read it electronically, with large print, that would be suitable. It is the first time I can remember encountering the term,"Psychohistory".

 

[Ellen Brown]

I don't think current psychology is making much sense. Do you?

And, if current psychology can't explain current human behavior well, what chance does it have of explaining the behavior of earlier humans?

Or to put it another way, once we understand human behavior, the causes of historical events should become evident.

I have no police record, and have never been accused of any crime. The Psych folk illegally confined me for a week, drugged me until I could no longer make a legal decision. These days I am told that people medicated the way I was can not have a Driver's License. They had their hands in my brain for nearly 15 years and destroyed everything I valued. I'm now finally off all their medications and no longer see any Psych folk. I'm not a danger to anyone, and follow God to the best of my ability.

So, what sort of respect do you think I'd have for them? I'm 72 and just want to get out of life in a way pleasing to God.

 

[Ellen Brown]

I hope @Ellen Brown doesn't mind my answering first, but essentially the premise is that, given large enough numbers and accurate enough data, the course of the future can be generally mathematically/statistically predicted. To perform this accurately, the psychohistorian must have insight into the human psyche, and understand why historical figures acted as they did, or how historical events came about -- thus the 'psycho'. The Foundation series deals with the attempts of a psychohistorian to preserve knowledge through a collapse he forsees of the galactic civilization.

Your answer is great. I sometimes think that Asimov's take on history is perhaps closest to the truth, though we would disagree about who originated it all in the beginning.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Well the problem Asminov ran into developing the concept was limitations and unintended consequences. It's in a sense looking towards a more "scientific" framework as a kind of guiding way of understanding that really actually fails not unlike my degree Theology. Where Theology takes a contemporary view projects is backwards to align behavior to ancient bronze age texts, Asminov flips that and projects the contemporary view forward into the future aligning behavior to what It believes to be a reasoned correct perspective will guide a proper outcome.


Hahaha.

Asminov was very interesting and very scientifically oriented but also understood scientific limitations which BTW seems invisible here on RF since most people aren't very good at understanding themselves or nature. He was one of my favorites from that generation of SF writers.

I'm a Religionist, but have to admit that often the Science Fiction Authors, many of whom are Atheists, seem to understand more about creation than Creationists.

 

[joe1776]

I have no police record, and have never been accused of any crime. The Psych folk illegally confined me for a week, drugged me until I could no longer make a legal decision. These days I am told that people medicated the way I was can not have a Driver's License. They had their hands in my brain for nearly 15 years and destroyed everything I valued. I'm now finally off all their medications and no longer see any Psych folk. I'm not a danger to anyone, and follow God to the best of my ability.

So, what sort of respect do you think I'd have for them? I'm 72 and just want to get out of life in a way pleasing to God.

A few weeks ago, I happened onto the Psychology Today website.An article, whose author claimed a Ph.D but not a degree in psychology wrote about some recent research into the effectiveness of psychotherapy. His claim was that all the methods had about the same success rate: about eight percent. In other words, about one in 12 seem to be helped by therapy regardless of the method used.

He added that research had checked on the success rate of various third-world treatments by shaman, witch doctors, voodoo priestesses, etc. They too had an eight percent success rate. The author's point was that all these healthcare people were highly trained professionals with years of training.

In the article's comment section, I wrote that it seemed more likely that the methods used had nothing whatsoever to do with the results and that the placebo effect could explain the good results.

The author answered admitting that the placebo effect was probably in play but he insisted that the extensive training of the therapists was a factor. I dropped the exchange, but if a therapist looked and sounded like a professional, and had neatly framed diplomas on his wall, he could probably charge $300 an hour and achieve an eight percent cure rate.

 

[David T]

I'm a Religionist, but have to admit that often the Science Fiction Authors, many of whom are Atheists, seem to understand more about creation than Creationists.

I think of the term atheism as it's used today as a more a reactionary term and not a literal meaningful term.

I could say I don't believe in God and that is true. I also could say I am absolutely not an atheist as well and that would be true. And i could say am I not remotely agnostic about that. That laces me outside the Trinity of "I believe, I don't believe, I am agnostic". All three have nothing to do with me. All three start with what they think and what they think determines what they are experiencing and how to interpret that.

I start with what I am experiencing. Thus I understand God in regards to experience not ideas about God. I love Christianity it's nutty. The founder of the faith was a female HE HAS RISEN, taught for 2,000 years by men. Hahahahaha now that's hilarious.

Hildegard DeBingen said in 1200 ad "we cannot live in an interpreted world for an interpreted world is not home". This is nearly impossible for us "smart" folk to understand.

Ellen I listen very closely to women, so goes the ladies so goes humanity. I am very aware of who is really running the show I think in Christianity they call that the holy spirit. I personally just call that mother nature. She is the one i measure from, I dare not for my own mental well being measure her, she is unbounded, a very very large woman! And I mean that respectfully just in case that gets back to management!.

 

[WalterTrull]

"we cannot live in an interpreted world for an interpreted world is not home"

Odd statement. We don't live in an interpreted world, but we can't help but interpret it. Seeing it is an interpretation. You may try to reduce or remove intellect from the interpretation, yet the senses, of all types, interpret.

 

[David T]

Odd statement. We don't live in an interpreted world, but we can't help but interpret it. Seeing it is an interpretation. You may try to reduce or remove intellect from the interpretation, yet the senses, of all types, interpret.

Yes we can help that we forget what we interpret is not what we experience. I eat an orange I tell how it tastes. Have you experienced eating an orange? Nope, yet this tends to become the default state of groups.

The Nicene Creed starts we believe and cut and pastes the Bible. The problem is especially here on this site the debates rage in the cut and paste.

I sit back here at "we believe" and say that's a big problem unto itself independent of the topic God which it is. Is that "we believe" an inadvertant we have zero clue but.... statement? It makes no sense.

 

[WalterTrull]

Yes we can help that we forget what we interpret is not what we experience.

Hmmm... all this interpreting talk stirred the old thought cauldron and another interesting conceit bubbled to the surface. Do you suppose we could all be just different interpretations of God? Just a thought.

 

[David T]

Hmmm... all this interpreting talk stirred the old thought cauldron and another interesting conceit bubbled to the surface. Do you suppose we could all be just different interpretations of God? Just a thought.

In a small sense yes that's an interesting way of putting it.

But don't forget there is the larger than human world as well and that's a whole lot more than just this planet as well! It's not all about us!

 

[WalterTrull]

there is the larger than human world as well

"Human" ? Maybe. Richard Conn Henry (Johns Hopkins Astrophysicist) says there's nothing "out there".