"Historians distrust large-scale models"

[Surlethe]

Back to the OP: Diamond has the misfortune that starting with Delbrück, the discipline of history has evolved very much in favor of detailed models. Historians as a whole distrust large-scale models, especially ones that try to explain humanity from the beginning to the end. He might have fared better had the tried to develop his model on one particular nation alone. For example, one can explain the rise of the USA far better with a single model than the rise of Europe, for the variations just become too much.

Why have historians disavowed large-scale modeling? If this is the case, then Diamond is (perhaps ineptly) trying to fill a gap that, rightfully, needs filling.

(Let's discuss large-scale historical modeling in this thread!)

[Stark]

Since Diamond's model is simplistic and shallow, that's probably why. As Thanas says the breadth of human history is in particular problematic, given limited information and massively changing circumstances throughout.

More to the point, human behavior isn't a chemical reaction and doesn't follow rules. When changes in history come down literally to chance, holistic models are problematic.

Frankly people attracted to simplistic answers shouldn't be studying history.

[TC Pilot]

The dangers of oversimplification and glossing over are probably the biggest reasons.

At the risk of being ironic, attempts to construct universal models have been notoriously unsuccesful and outright tragic when put into application in the real world. The United States, for instance, could not simply impose democratic institutions on the Third World and expect it to thrive. Russia or your typical African state could not simply embrace market capitalsim and magically become prosperous. Imperialists could not simply impose Western culture on colonies and natives. Think you can really trace a direct line from Luther to Hitler? Think the death of Marcus Aurelius marked the beginning of the end of the Roman Empire? Think history has been a never ending class struggle? Want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?

History is simply too complex and, sadly, unknown for any model to accurately reflect the reality of the past. Put in scientific terms, it would be like constructing a physical law on the basis of a handful of experiments. It'll fit the evidence you have on hand, but you can bet there's something out there that won't fit.

But I've got this nagging feeling I'm misunderstanding the OP's question...

[Formless]

Since Diamond's model is simplistic and shallow, that's probably why. As Thanas says the breadth of human history is in particular problematic, given limited information and massively changing circumstances throughout.

That doesn't really answer the question, Stark. Few people, particularly historians, do large scale models of history at all. That Diamond's model seems simplistic shouldn't be surprising given his audience and the fact that he's one of the few to even try. Newton's laws are simplistic compared to General Relativity, but that doesn't mean they were useless.

More to the point, human behavior isn't a chemical reaction and doesn't follow rules. When changes in history come down literally to chance, holistic models are problematic.

Evolution is insanely complex and at the heart of it is random chance. Yet its one of the most successful models in the scientific tradition.

And besides, this statement is simply wrong. Human behavior follows rules all right-- insanely complex rules that at times are better seen as guidelines, but rules nonetheless. The article Thanas linked to in the other thread pointed out the real problem with Diamond's models-- they are intended to work on large scales, because at those scales the differences in human behavior averages out. Then Diamond made the mistake of trying to be more specific than they allowed for when he tried to answer the question of "why Europe?"

Frankly people attracted to simplistic answers shouldn't be studying history.

Or any science. What else is new?

[Stark]

That doesn't really answer the question, Stark. Few people, particularly historians, do large scale models of history at all. That Diamond's model seems simplistic shouldn't be surprising given his audience and the fact that he's one of the few to even try. Newton's laws are simplistic compared to General Relativity, but that doesn't mean they were useless.

So what? His model is poo, and I don't care why; if large-scale holistic models of the past are like this, this is exactly why historians distrust them - they suck.

Evolution is insanely complex and at the heart of it is random chance. Yet its one of the most successful models in the scientific tradition.

I guess you missed the part about chemistry right there, hey champ?

And besides, this statement is simply wrong. Human behavior follows rules all right-- insanely complex rules that at times are better seen as guidelines, but rules nonetheless. The article Thanas linked to in the other thread pointed out the real problem with Diamond's models-- they are intended to work on large scales, because at those scales the differences in human behavior averages out. Then Diamond made the mistake of trying to be more specific than they allowed for when he tried to answer the question of "why Europe?"

Right, and the rise and fall of xyz kingdom can depend on who's in a room, or who overhears what, and where someone goes to die. Modeling that is going to be pretty funny stuff, and its even worse when you look at attitudes or culture, which can vary based on even less 'high level' things. Even assuming you have a broad depth of accurate information, which you generally don't.

[Formless]

So what? His model is poo, and I don't care why; if large-scale holistic models of the past are like this, this is exactly why historians distrust them - they suck.

I guess you missed the part where I said that they work at large scales. All the criticisms I've heard so far are in regards to specific claims regarding his models of social collapse (hey, the last thread was about the book Collapse, go figure) and his rather less than successful attempt to answer "why Europe?" But if this really is as simple as "all previous models sucked, therefore we shouldn't try" it would indicate to me that historians are either idiots or easily intimidated compared to scientists. I personally find that hard to believe.

Evolution is insanely complex and at the heart of it is random chance. Yet its one of the most successful models in the scientific tradition.

I guess you missed the part about chemistry right there, hey champ?

Stark can't recognize a false comparison. News at eleven.

More seriously, you are missing the point. Chemistry and history are not comparable. Evolution, which already is an attempt to understand history at even larger scales than Diamond is working with, is much more similar. They use the same methodology, which is designed to work around the limitations like "you can't do lab experiments" that chemists don't have to work around. Yet, we have working models in evolutionary biology. Why is it so inconceivable that human history could be modeled too?

Right, and the rise and fall of xyz kingdom can depend on who's in a room, or who overhears what, and where someone goes to die. Modeling that is going to be pretty funny stuff, and its even worse when you look at attitudes or culture, which can vary based on even less 'high level' things. Even assuming you have a broad depth of accurate information, which you generally don't.

No argument, but that doesn't make the effort any less worth it. There are a lot of places where evidence is scarce, but we still try. Why don't historians?

[Samuel]

More seriously, you are missing the point. Chemistry and history are not comparable. Evolution, which already is an attempt to understand history at even larger scales than Diamond is working with, is much more similar. Yet, we have working models in that science. Why is it so inconceivable that human history could be modeled too?

Because the scale of evolution and chemistry are so large that all the minor fluctuations even out. By contrast much of human history has been affected by the decisions of a comparitively small number of people and so chance plays a much bigger part.

Not to mention there is the effect where past changes have an influence on future changes so the randomness gets permanently presserved and exhaggerated.

[Stark]

Don't be a retard, Formless. I didn't say 'don't do it'; nobody said that. Untie your panties. We're talking about why professionals distrust models of this type, to which 'they always suck' is a pretty good explanation. The specific example of Diamond is excellent in this regard; a high-profile pop historian with a rubbish model - how would you expect historians to react?

I hate to say this, but if you're too stupid to understand that history is less deterministic and thus harder to model top-to-bottom - making large-scale models unattractive and detailed models prominent - is relevant to this thread, you need to sit back and think about what you're saying.

Since you harp on about science comparisons all the time (god knows why), its worth remembering that there is constant work in the field at all levels and in all areas. That work constantly improves the foundation for any holistic models.

[Axiomatic]

I'm probably misunderstanding something, but if you have a model which only works for the one thing, and cannot be used to explain or predict anything else...then how is it even a model, let alone remotely useful? It just seems so pointlessly circular.

[Formless]

Don't be a retard, Formless. I didn't say 'don't do it'; nobody said that. Untie your panties. We're talking about why professionals distrust models of this type, to which 'they always suck' is a pretty good explanation. The specific example of Diamond is excellent in this regard; a high-profile pop historian with a rubbish model - how would you expect historians to react?

I guess you could say I need more information, because this explanation seems unsatisfactory to me. I won't say its not a possibility, but it would sure would be disappointing for what it says about the profession.

Since you harp on about science comparisons all the time (god knows why), its worth remembering that there is constant work in the field at all levels and in all areas. That work constantly improves the foundation for any holistic models.

I'm making those comparisons because that's actually Diamond's background AND his purpose-- he's a biologist, and he wanted to inject a more scientific attitude into history as a profession. The thing is, even where the complexity is high (like psychology, sociology, and the other social sciences) we don't throw out models simply because they aren't perfect either. That's all I'm trying to say.

I'm probably misunderstanding something, but if you have a model which only works for the one thing, and cannot be used to explain or predict anything else...then how is it even a model, let alone remotely useful? It just seems so pointlessly circular.

Its like quantum physics. If you are trying to figure out the ultimate effects of a collision between two planetoids, you use a more abstract model because you lack the time and resources to model the behavior of every single particle in the system during the event. In the same way, chemistry is just applied physics, biology is just applied chemistry, neurology and medicine is just applied biology, psychology is just applied neuroscience, sociology is just psychology of crowds and groups, etc. Its a matter of practicality.

[TC Pilot]

Can we get at least a link to the thread that spawned this one? I have no idea who this Diamond character is.

[Formless]

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=144988

[TC Pilot]

Oh crap, that Diamond. Now I feel stupid.

[Bakustra]

Don't be a retard, Formless. I didn't say 'don't do it'; nobody said that. Untie your panties. We're talking about why professionals distrust models of this type, to which 'they always suck' is a pretty good explanation. The specific example of Diamond is excellent in this regard; a high-profile pop historian with a rubbish model - how would you expect historians to react?

I guess you could say I need more information, because this explanation seems unsatisfactory to me. I won't say its not a possibility, but it would sure would be disappointing for what it says about the profession.

Okay, let's call this the cryptozoology effect. If the area is filled with cranks, then nobody serious is going to want to work there, because the cranks will latch onto you and use you to legitimize themselves, and you'll have nobody but cranks to work with, and everybody will eventually associate you with the cranks. Granted, the effectiveness of large, vague models may be more than that of cryptozoological investigations. I, personally, doubt it.

Since you harp on about science comparisons all the time (god knows why), its worth remembering that there is constant work in the field at all levels and in all areas. That work constantly improves the foundation for any holistic models.

I'm making those comparisons because that's actually Diamond's background AND his purpose-- he's a biologist, and he wanted to inject a more scientific attitude into history as a profession. The thing is, even where the complexity is high (like psychology, sociology, and the other social sciences) we don't throw out models simply because they aren't perfect either. That's all I'm trying to say.

Okay, let's take a look at two examples that shatter the hopes of a general model.

As a result of his search for an heir, Henry VIII broke from the Roman Catholic Church and established his own church. That would then go on to determine much of the course of English history for the next three centuries and to a lesser extent on to the modern day. Had the pope annulled his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, then this would not have happened. The Pope did so in part because he couldn't afford to go against the Holy Roman Emperor, who was also King of Spain. The Pope had tried to break with the Emperor over another matter, but a Imperial-aligned cardinal sacked Rome in response and then an Imperial army had besieged Rome and sacked it again. Both the chance of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor being simultaneously Carlos I of Spain and the Pope having been forced into alignment with the Emperor were entirely due to personal actions. The complexity involved in modeling this event is enormous, as it depends heavily upon personal behavior and actions, not blind forces.

The second is the rise of Hitler, which was dependent on the actions and choices of Franz von Papen, Paul von Hindenburg, and Kurt von Schleicher. Had Papen failed to convince Hindenburg, had Schleicher taken full means to hold onto power, had Papen never sought to ally with Hitler, then the downward decline in membership and loyalty the Nazis faced in 1932 and 33 would have continued based on the historical results of the Schleicher government's policies. Hitler would have almost certainly never gotten into power, and the Nazis would have faded into the background of history. This was also heavily contingent on the actions of individuals, not impersonal forces. Models can only really deal with impersonal forces, and so Diamond's GG&S model can predict the lack of steel weapons amongst Atahuallpa's army, but it could not predict that the Inca would undergo a succession crisis shortly before Pizarro arrived.

[Formless]

Okay, let's call this the cryptozoology effect. If the area is filled with cranks, then nobody serious is going to want to work there, because the cranks will latch onto you and use you to legitimize themselves, and you'll have nobody but cranks to work with, and everybody will eventually associate you with the cranks. Granted, the effectiveness of large, vague models may be more than that of cryptozoological investigations. I, personally, doubt it.

I suppose that comparison is apt, though on the particulars I guess we'll have to agree to disagree so as to not drag this thread down tangent alley.

Models can only really deal with impersonal forces, and so Diamond's GG&S model can predict the lack of steel weapons amongst Atahuallpa's army, but it could not predict that the Inca would undergo a succession crisis shortly before Pizarro arrived.

Fair enough. I never did say it was perfect, only that we shouldn't be surprised that it has flaws when its one of the few out there that works at all. It ought to be refined, not thrown away. Otherwise, it will never get out of the "filled with cranks" zone.

[Bakustra]

Okay, let's call this the cryptozoology effect. If the area is filled with cranks, then nobody serious is going to want to work there, because the cranks will latch onto you and use you to legitimize themselves, and you'll have nobody but cranks to work with, and everybody will eventually associate you with the cranks. Granted, the effectiveness of large, vague models may be more than that of cryptozoological investigations. I, personally, doubt it.

I suppose that comparison is apt, though on the particulars I guess we'll have to agree to disagree so as to not drag this thread down tangent alley.

Models can only really deal with impersonal forces, and so Diamond's GG&S model can predict the lack of steel weapons amongst Atahuallpa's army, but it could not predict that the Inca would undergo a succession crisis shortly before Pizarro arrived.

Fair enough. I never did say it was perfect, only that we shouldn't be surprised that it has flaws when its one of the few out there that works at all. It ought to be refined, not thrown away. Otherwise, it will never get out of the "filled with cranks" zone.

It only works to a limited extent, though. In the other thread, Thanas posted a critique of Guns, Germs and Steel in the other thread which points out that historians had an explanation already: population differences. While this may seem dependent on agriculture, the initial populations of the Americas and Australia were much smaller than those of Eurasia and the same with the population of Africa. So it is no wonder that the majority of innovation comes from the continents with the largest populations, though Diamond's model is also a factor in that. But the east-west axis that Diamond proposes is a failure. Climatically, he suggests that Japan and continental Europe are similar enough that crops could be shared. But to get from one to the other is a trip through both drier and moister and hotter and colder climates no matter which way you go, which defeats the hypothesis entirely. So the model is only useful when at its vaguest- when applied more directly it tends to fall apart.

[Formless]

What about South Africa? Note, I haven't read the book. I'm mostly aware of his theories through the PBS special, but in that they made a much bigger deal about the climatological similarity of Europe and South Africa to explain why colonization was so successful there and they never even mentioned Japan. If Japan is a bad example, but the hypothesis still explains other events then I wouldn't consider the hypothesis "utterly defeated." That would be cherry picking.

[Bakustra]

What about South Africa? Note, I haven't read the book. I'm mostly aware of his theories through the PBS special, but in that they made a much bigger deal about the climatological similarity of Europe and South Africa to explain why colonization was so successful there and they never even mentioned Japan. If Japan is a bad example, but the hypothesis still explains other events then I wouldn't consider the hypothesis "utterly defeated." That would be cherry picking.

South Africa is contrary to the idea of an east-west axis, because it is nearly due south from Europe. That's the point- the axis he proposes is largely imaginary. The similarities potentially (and quite probably) disallowed extension of equatorial African agriculture into the regions across the Fish River, thus leaving the area mainly inhabited by Khoisan hunter-gatherers. But this only shows that climate can be important.

[Formless]

But this only shows that climate can be important.

Maybe I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell that's all he's really trying to show.

[Bakustra]

But this only shows that climate can be important.

Maybe I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell that's all he's really trying to show.

His emphasis (indeed, he cites it as the ultimate cause) is on the large east-west axis of Eurasia as an explanation for why Eurasia pulled ahead of Africa and the Americas. But this falls apart when looked at too closely.

[Vehrec]

But this only shows that climate can be important.

Maybe I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell that's all he's really trying to show.

His emphasis (indeed, he cites it as the ultimate cause) is on the large east-west axis of Eurasia as an explanation for why Eurasia pulled ahead of Africa and the Americas. But this falls apart when looked at too closely.

It's ironic that you have oversimplified diamond's claims in order to accuse him of oversimplification. His arguments for why the Eurasian continent pulled ahead in the technology and civilization race have as much to do with species distribution as they do with the spread of said species after domestication. How many animal species were domesticated in the new world? Four that I can think of, Turkeys, Llamas, Alpacas and Guniea Pigs. Compare this to the Eurasian selection of Chickens, Pigs, Horses, Cattle, Goats, Sheep, Donkeys, Camels, and many other minor species such as elephants, bees and ducks. Clearly, there is an advantage here, even if there is no mystical east-west axis to debunk.

As I read it, the East-west axis argument was one of the weaker parts of his argument. However, the basic biologically deterministic elements of the book were strong enough to stand on their own without it.

[Bakustra]

His emphasis (indeed, he cites it as the ultimate cause) is on the large east-west axis of Eurasia as an explanation for why Eurasia pulled ahead of Africa and the Americas. But this falls apart when looked at too closely.

It's ironic that you have oversimplified diamond's claims in order to accuse him of oversimplification. His arguments for why the Eurasian continent pulled ahead in the technology and civilization race have as much to do with species distribution as they do with the spread of said species after domestication. How many animal species were domesticated in the new world? Four that I can think of, Turkeys, Llamas, Alpacas and Guniea Pigs. Compare this to the Eurasian selection of Chickens, Pigs, Horses, Cattle, Goats, Sheep, Donkeys, Camels, and many other minor species such as elephants, bees and ducks. Clearly, there is an advantage here, even if there is no mystical east-west axis to debunk.

As I read it, the East-west axis argument was one of the weaker parts of his argument. However, the basic biologically deterministic elements of the book were strong enough to stand on their own without it.

You're ignoring that he puts the east-west axis on an even footing with the distribution of species. But this presents another problem with his model. It claims to provide ultimate factors. But, then we have the question of why there are so many fewer suitable species to domesticate on these continents. In particular, we have extinctions in the Americas and Australia around the same time humans settled the continents- but these also correspond with glacial activity (a minimum and a maximum). But there should be at least an attempt at an explanation, if we are to identify ultimate causes! That is the greatest problem with Guns, Germs and Steel, that it promises too much, and so fails to deliver. While it has use, those uses are far more modest than the ones he proposes.

[Thanas]

Why have historians disavowed large-scale modeling? If this is the case, then Diamond is (perhaps ineptly) trying to fill a gap that, rightfully, needs filling.

Because they just do not work. See Luttwak's theory about the defence of the Roman empire (coliseum thread) for why not. At a first look, his model makes sense and seems self-evident. But try and look at it closely and consider the evidence - it becomes less and less useful and once you realize that you need a variation of the model for every situation to explain that one, the large-scale model twists and changes according to the circumstances to the point where it is just plain useless and better to discard it, because as a historian you usually try to answer a specific question. (I wonder why you did not ask your wife this though, isn't she trying to get a Ph.D.? If so, she should already have taken this during her major or MA)

That said, there are some models that are highly successful. For example, the triangular trade model explaining why Britain got so rich. Or the industrialization model commonly proposed based on the studies of British centralization and land enclosures. Thing is, these are all very specific models for a specific situation, despite the scale.

*****************

As I read it, the East-west axis argument was one of the weaker parts of his argument. However, the basic biologically deterministic elements of the book were strong enough to stand on their own without it.

How so? Especially his idea of "fragmentation is good as it promotes innovation" and his idea of "natural borders allowed nations to form in peace = prosperity" etc.

[Steel]

I think people are confused about

• What a model is.
• What a model does.

We should talk about what it means to get the "right answer" in the context of modelling as well.

Okay, let's take a look at two examples that shatter the hopes of a general model.

Henry VIII broke from the Roman Catholic Church

Hitler

Let us first of all think about reality. Actual reality is the greatest simulation of events. It has all the mechanisms and works everything out exactly. Lets take the reality simulation backwards in time and let it go again. I can guarantee you that if we ran our reality simulation again from far enough back then Hitler wouldn't exist in the second realisation of 'reality', nor the third. I would say that the variations within our possible histories are larger than the variations between the histories of possible worlds. That is the real power of chaos.

To say that any possible model is wrong if it does not predict Hitler (or any other specific event) is a useless metric. If reality itself wont give us what we got the first time, how on earth is any model we can make going to work?

What is a model actually meant to do then? I'll take an example of something highly random that is modelled to illustrate this: an epidemic. A model is meant to be something that is a representation or reality that captures the essential features of a process. It should not be a total simulation. You would never get anywhere trying to model an epidemic by tracking individual spores or viruses, it needs to work at a higher level if it is going to be of any use. The model cannot and should not try and predict the specifics of a highly random process. It is useless to ask a question about an epidemic such as "will this specific person, Joe, get sick?", instead you want to get at more abstract quantities, such as what is the expected total number of people that will be infected over the course of the epidemic, or what is the probability that a certain region is infected.

You see modelling of highly random processes every day. The weather is, despite being completely described by physics and fluid dynamics, predicted with statistical methods. There is no way of knowing if it will rain tomorrow for certain, but they can give you a probability of rain. This is not perfect, but it is very useful.


A a useful model is one that distils reality down and gives actual insight into the processes that are occurring.

For example, a model that describes the interaction of nations based on their natural resources would be a useful thing to have. If you can assess how nations behave when they have XYZ around them then you have gained some insight into history. It doesn't matter that a monarch could act totally contrary to the model in a certain situation to seduce his sister.

Any model of history should not be expected to just simulate everything, nor should it be dismissed just because it does not say that person X should die at time Y. To dismiss all attempts at models for history because they will inevitably be 'imperfect' when held against the standard of the one specific history we happened to get is a terrible idea.

[Bakustra]

I am not objecting to the use of models in history, but large-scale models like Diamond's that seek to explain all of history or large portions of it in simplistic ways. You could have read back in the thread to realize this, since I was focusing on grand models rather than small-scale ones.

EDIT: One characteristic of a good model is that it should be able to predict things that already happened. If a model can't be used to explain the data used to make it, then it is not a good model, and a model of the whole of history should be able to take the case of January 1933 or December 1932 and determine that Hitler would be in power by February with a reasonable degree of accuracy.