Well, out of curiousity I read an article (transcript of a speech actually) that summarizes the claims of a new field of historical analysis, psychohistory.
The articles overviews the history of humanity in terms of the central role of the history of child abuse. The central thesis is that
Central to the argument are claims that historically, and contemporarilly, child abuse, especially sexual, and especially incestous, is far more prevelant then once thought.
In the United States, for example, the statistic
No such studies are cited (it is a speech) Nevertheless, the author goes on to state:
The rest of the article lists a laundry list of abuses children have been subjected to in the past and today, across many cultures. For example:
History, according to the article is a progression from a persistently abusive initial state.
Luckily, church reformers came to the rescue and began banning certain practices in teh West.
which directly sparked the Renasaince :rolleyes: hmm
History has been the up and down story of each individual tending to grow a little more decent, slowing the cycle of abuse and limiting its damage to the next generation.
And so, the author claims that we must continue to evolve the practice of parenting and that we are finally waking up from a nightmare, that has been history. I need help taking this argument apart, I’m out of my league here with a lot of these statistics and supposed practices, so if anyone knows of any good criticism of psychohistory and their claims, I’m interested, also if anyone can offer criticism to their claims I’d apreciate it.
Well I’ve heard about it as a somewhat legitimate discipline while going to school. Only recently have I heard that Isaac Asimov may have coined the term.
They have an institute and a journal, though I don’t have any basis to understand their legitimacy.
When I saw this thread title, I thought it was about the idea of psychohistory as developed in Isaac Asimov’s Foundation Trilogy. It’s set in a future Galactic Empire – statistical psychologist Hari Seldon has developed a science that can actually predict the future of human society – in this case, exactly how long the Empire has before it falls. Kind of like Marxist historical determinism, but with more math involved, and without the philosophical foundation of Hegelian idealism, and without any mention of class struggle or a future utopian society.
If some real-life scientist or pseudoscientist thought they had hit on something like that, that would be a lot more interesting than the “psychohistory” described in the OP.
The author of the quoted material is clearly suffering from “I’ve found the key to EVERYTHING!” syndrome. Most people get over this by their third year of college, but sadly a few don’t.
Look at the link’s home page. It’s has a bunch of conspiracy bullshit about 9/11. Look at the bio of Lloyd, the director. No mention of what he even has a degree in. My best guess is that this is a fruitcake site.
AKAIK, the only expert in psychohistory is IsaaC Asimov. I highly reccommend the Foundation Trilogy. Absolutely worth reading. Actually, I think Asimov is dead, and I believe he actually preficted his eventual death while still alive.
I did a Gogle search and came up with a bunch of references to that journal and that institute and the novels, and nothing else that I saw.
I recall a history professor of mine telling me that there was some decent psychohistory out there, he cited stuff on the salem witch trials. Nevertheless, the good stuff was few and far between. I guess that kind of stuff might be mixed in with other history journals, and the so-called institute is mostly hogwash.
Still, I wouldn’t mind seeing a more scholarly evaluation of his thesis somewhere, maybe if I dig enough I can find something.
Actually, it was Hari Seldon who was the most noted psychohistorian.
The study of psychology and history is an interesting one, but it’s limited because you can’t interview historical figures and by the fact that those studying it fall into the trap of assuming people in the past thought like those in the present.
One can argue, for instance, that Elizabeth I never married because her mother was executed (making her believe marriage = death) and because she herself nearly was nearly executed when she came close to sleeping with another man (thus equating sex with death). It’s an interesting possibility, but it impossible to prove one way or another.
As far as allegations of abuse are concerned, you’d need a lot more hard data that what this guy is using. What hard evidence does he have to back up his figures?
The guy is obviously a fruitcake, as noted, But that’s not what I find scary. What I find scary is the wider acceptance of very similar figures often quoted about 30-40% of people “remembering” being molested as children. That’s something that goes much farther than this particular fruitcake.
The fact that they took the name from science fiction has nothing to do with whether or not it is a valid theory any more than you would discredit the Oedipus Complex simply because the name was taken from a Greek myth.
Psychohistory claims that the aggregate state of mind of all people in a society has great influence on what the society does as a whole. That makes a lot of sense. Specifically they say that there is a theme of child abuse that is common enough to affect society in a very negative way.
The question of credentials is a good one, but not enough to debunk what they are saying, only enough to say that it warrants further investigation. But the fact is that if they DID have the appropriate academic credentials it would STILL warrant investigation. Plenty of “experts” say very stupid things. And people without credentials come up with incredible truths.
I am a graduate student in social work and have just completed a course in Trauma in Children and Adolescents and find remarkable similarity in those individual experiences and in the collective history and behaviors of our civilization. Like people suffering from abuse we react to our pained history in out of unhealed pain and without reflection or wisdom.
Of course there is always more than one answer to things, and if the writers of psychohistory claim that this is THE answer, there is no need to adopt their certainty. Simply investigate and use your own judgment.
By the way Carl Jung, brilliant psychoanalyst had lots to say on the “collective unconscious.” I believe he would find psychohistory very credible. Also by the way, Isaac Asimov’s explanation of psychohistory was based on mathematical statistics, a completely different rationale than here. Only the name and the idea that everybody’s behavior has an overall effect is similar.
Carl Jung finding psychohistory credible is only relevant if one considers Carl Jung credible.
And the stuff the OP found is clearly just masturbatory material for a closeted pedophile. Child abuse obviously doesn’t stabilize society, and only a sicko would think otherwise.
These theories always are ambiguous enough so that post hoc you can take whatever it is that actually happened and point out that it fits the theory, and as a result are not falsifiable.
So far all attacks I have read above on psychohistory don’t explain WHY it’s nonsense. The fact that it used a word from Isaac Asimov does not falsify it any more than saying the Oedipus Complex is nonsense because the word Oedipus was taken from a Greek myth. You may find a reason to doubt Freudian theory, but borrowing a word from fiction is not a valid one.
The question is does the theory help you look at history that makes it more understandable and predictable? I find it does. It’s as good a theory as any I’ve heard and better than many. When it comes to history most people don’t have a theory at all. At the very least it warrants serious investigation.
I would agree that if they are saying that is THE reason then that is nonsense. No matter, there’s still a lot of good ideas to work with.
One thing psychohistory does not ask is WHY there is so much child abuse? The reasons for that need to be investigated.
He seems to think it is just the natural way to behave.
It is nonsense because the whole moral logic of this theory is incoherent. On the one hand incestuous sex with children is presented (in line with current common sense) as a most dreadful evil, and on the other hand it is the natural way for humans to behave, the sort of claim that is usually employed to argue that the allegedly natural behavior is right, and ought to be encouraged.
As someone implied above, it looks just like the sort of theory that a guilt wracked pedophile in deep denial would come up with, to justify both his feelings and his guilt and revulsion about them.
As the only practicing psychohistorian around, I object to the use of this term for a load of bull. For the benefit of dopers, let me explain that psychohistory is the attempt to apply something like statistical mechanics to the prediction of future human development. And as my creator well knew, this attempt is probably futile since a Mule (read Hitler or Stalin) can appear and screw everything up.
I would like to comment on the theory however. When I took anthropology lo these many years ago, we read about a society in which all children from age 8 were gradually initiated into sex by grownups. Is that sex abuse? No, it is bringing pleasure to children. They were not traumatized by it since it was a perfectly normal activity in that society. It is only when children are raised in a society in which sex is considered sinful and shameful that they are traumatized by it. And especially when it is done by the very religious authorities who rail against it.
Among other primates, there are no religious authorities and it is just normal behavior. If it were the same here, we would all be better off. Incidentally, forcing sex on infants is not normal behavior among any primates, but that is a different matter.
