I found Turchin's book very disappointing. It's heavy on the sermonizing and policy advice it declares necessary, but light on the evidence and rationale. The TL:DR is that we need to tax the rich more, because Science (TM.) I realize most people are allergic to numbers and equations, but a man claiming to have partially cracked the secrets of history using mathematics ought to give us some methodology to back up his claims. His historical examples are given in only the most rudimentary and sparse manner, and always serve to justify his preferred explanations without considering other possibilities (a practice he harshly criticizes in the book when other people do it.) I learned very little and came away unconvinced.
I posted the following comment on Turchin's blog in response to his post entitled "Structural-Demographic Theory: What’s Next?"
My comment:
"What should be next is modeling the impact of psychopathy on the wealth pump. If the structural-demographic theory already includes psychopathy within the elites, my limited reading has missed it. Ascribing the wealth pump’s ever-increasing volume to “human nature = that’s how people are,” ignores the fact that psychopaths are more frequent in elite professions as well as the likelihood that psychopathy is naturally selected within the elite when certain conditions obtain, e.g., in a long-lasting dynasty. If elite psychopathy is a stronger force later in the immiseration phase, that would be useful to know for purposes of avoiding the worst societal outcomes.
Harrison Koehli’s blog “Political Ponerology” focuses on the origin of evil in political contexts."
Although he allowed posting of my comment, Turchin did not respond to it. Perhaps he thinks laying the societal blame at the feet of psychopathic elites is not conducive to future consulting jobs focusing on recommending ways to keep the lid on the pot.
> Though, it’s not entirely clear what culture even means in this context.
Is he referring the memes and mimetic selection? Meme theory was first described by Richard Dawkins in "The Selfish Gene", so I have a hard time believing you're not familiar with it.
That may well have been what Turchin had in mind, But it seems unlikely given his hostility to the notion of the selfish gene. But anyway the meme theory as proposed by Dawkins is another of the frequent examples of Dawkins inconsistently operationalizing the theory for which he is most famous as a publicist. Maybe that's the drawback of being a publicist rather than a deep theoretical thinker.
Memes do not control human minds; human minds control memes -- choosing them (or not) for their fitness benefits (with all the usual qualifications required to talk about biology noted). That is exactly what selfish gene theory predicts. Dawkins though was too fixated on demonizing ideas (as mind viruses) of which he disapproved that he simply ignored the implications of the theory he was made famous publicizing.
> Memes do not control human minds; human minds control memes -- choosing them (or not) for their fitness benefits (with all the usual qualifications required to talk about biology noted).
In what way did posting that comment, or writing the OP, raise your genetic fitness?
Hopefully it increased my social status. Because higher social status increases likelihood of access to more resources and better quality mates. This is evolutionary biology 101.
I've noticed his blindness to the role played by the Academia as well. Turchin is influenced by his environment, the fish that does not know it's in the water. Besides, he is definitely on the Progressive side of the spectrum. You know what suddenly happened in the 80's? Reagan, that's what happened...
[The purpose of the above is not to badmouth Turchin, whom I really respect and even like, but to be aware of his biases.]
--------
>near the point of social impotence
Here's what Jouvenel wrote about the New Deal:
"I find a remarkable counterpart to the story of the two Gracchi in that of the two Roosevelts.
Theodore Roosevelt, considering that the physical independence of the majority of citizens was the essential condition of their attachment to libertarian institutions, applied himself to fighting a plutocracy which was transforming citizens into salaried dependants. He came to grief on the same blind egoism of the men of great place as caused the downfall of Tiberius Gracchus.
Franklin Roosevelt accepted the accomplished fact, took up the defence of the unemployed and the economically weak, and constructed, by means of their votes and to their immediate advantage, such a structure of Power as recalled in striking fashion the work of the first Roman emperors. The individual right— the shield of each, which had become the bulwark of a few— had to bow down before the social right. And the free citizen passed a milestone on his way
to becoming a protected subject."
*protected subject* - dependant, "near the point of social impotence"
I found Turchin's book very disappointing. It's heavy on the sermonizing and policy advice it declares necessary, but light on the evidence and rationale. The TL:DR is that we need to tax the rich more, because Science (TM.) I realize most people are allergic to numbers and equations, but a man claiming to have partially cracked the secrets of history using mathematics ought to give us some methodology to back up his claims. His historical examples are given in only the most rudimentary and sparse manner, and always serve to justify his preferred explanations without considering other possibilities (a practice he harshly criticizes in the book when other people do it.) I learned very little and came away unconvinced.
In fairness, he does explicitly say this new book is intended for the allergic to numbers crowd. And his others are pretty densely statistical.
I posted the following comment on Turchin's blog in response to his post entitled "Structural-Demographic Theory: What’s Next?"
My comment:
"What should be next is modeling the impact of psychopathy on the wealth pump. If the structural-demographic theory already includes psychopathy within the elites, my limited reading has missed it. Ascribing the wealth pump’s ever-increasing volume to “human nature = that’s how people are,” ignores the fact that psychopaths are more frequent in elite professions as well as the likelihood that psychopathy is naturally selected within the elite when certain conditions obtain, e.g., in a long-lasting dynasty. If elite psychopathy is a stronger force later in the immiseration phase, that would be useful to know for purposes of avoiding the worst societal outcomes.
Harrison Koehli’s blog “Political Ponerology” focuses on the origin of evil in political contexts."
Although he allowed posting of my comment, Turchin did not respond to it. Perhaps he thinks laying the societal blame at the feet of psychopathic elites is not conducive to future consulting jobs focusing on recommending ways to keep the lid on the pot.
> Though, it’s not entirely clear what culture even means in this context.
Is he referring the memes and mimetic selection? Meme theory was first described by Richard Dawkins in "The Selfish Gene", so I have a hard time believing you're not familiar with it.
That may well have been what Turchin had in mind, But it seems unlikely given his hostility to the notion of the selfish gene. But anyway the meme theory as proposed by Dawkins is another of the frequent examples of Dawkins inconsistently operationalizing the theory for which he is most famous as a publicist. Maybe that's the drawback of being a publicist rather than a deep theoretical thinker.
In what way do you think it's inconsistent?
Memes do not control human minds; human minds control memes -- choosing them (or not) for their fitness benefits (with all the usual qualifications required to talk about biology noted). That is exactly what selfish gene theory predicts. Dawkins though was too fixated on demonizing ideas (as mind viruses) of which he disapproved that he simply ignored the implications of the theory he was made famous publicizing.
> Memes do not control human minds; human minds control memes -- choosing them (or not) for their fitness benefits (with all the usual qualifications required to talk about biology noted).
In what way did posting that comment, or writing the OP, raise your genetic fitness?
Hopefully it increased my social status. Because higher social status increases likelihood of access to more resources and better quality mates. This is evolutionary biology 101.
I've noticed his blindness to the role played by the Academia as well. Turchin is influenced by his environment, the fish that does not know it's in the water. Besides, he is definitely on the Progressive side of the spectrum. You know what suddenly happened in the 80's? Reagan, that's what happened...
[The purpose of the above is not to badmouth Turchin, whom I really respect and even like, but to be aware of his biases.]
--------
>near the point of social impotence
Here's what Jouvenel wrote about the New Deal:
"I find a remarkable counterpart to the story of the two Gracchi in that of the two Roosevelts.
Theodore Roosevelt, considering that the physical independence of the majority of citizens was the essential condition of their attachment to libertarian institutions, applied himself to fighting a plutocracy which was transforming citizens into salaried dependants. He came to grief on the same blind egoism of the men of great place as caused the downfall of Tiberius Gracchus.
Franklin Roosevelt accepted the accomplished fact, took up the defence of the unemployed and the economically weak, and constructed, by means of their votes and to their immediate advantage, such a structure of Power as recalled in striking fashion the work of the first Roman emperors. The individual right— the shield of each, which had become the bulwark of a few— had to bow down before the social right. And the free citizen passed a milestone on his way
to becoming a protected subject."
*protected subject* - dependant, "near the point of social impotence"
Install more government to deal with spectacular mess first and foremost cooked by excessive government 🤦
🗨 Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.
Indeed. Academic blinders are of rock solid variety, ain’t gonna budge a skosh.
PS Hear the monotonous hum of Upton Sinclair’s tired one-liner? Working on subconscious level, busy to secure its ignorance-dependent salary... 🤸
turchin is a camp following whore