Anderson mentions attempts by Oswald Spengler, Arnold Toynbee and others:
"...to find patterns in recorded events, a deeper meaning or rhythm." (p. 197)
- and comments:
"Whether or not such efforts will eventually lead to an Asimovian science of 'psychohistory' remains to be seen." (ibid.)
But why does Anderson not also refer to the much more credible Andersonian science of 'psychotechnics? Psychohistory, we are told, is based only in mathematics and applies to an entire human galaxy whereas psychotechnics is derived from games theory, general semantics etc (see here) and is only partially applicable to the more immediate future on Earth and in the Solar System: a much less implausible presentation of the idea of a predictive science of society.
4 comments:
Poul followed a general trajectory in American intellectual circles, from belief that a "science of history" had been (Marxists, Toynbeans) or could be found, to increasing doubt that that was possible.
It's notable that the conception of how unstable time travel made history went through a similar arc in the Time Patrol stories.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
And we do see Anderson, in his later years, being much taken by the work of John K. Hord.
Ad astra! Sean
Marx and Engels thought that each particular conflict between classes always ended "...either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes." Thus, there was no inevitable outcome.
Also, it could be predicted that a boom would be followed by a slump but not when this would happen or, except in very general terms, how each part of society would respond at each stage.
No psychohistorical or psychotechnic equations.
Kaor, Paul!
Free enterprise economists have also studied booms followed by slumps. And their conclusion has been we actually NEED slumps or recessions. Because as time passes during a boom, mistakes begins to be made, resources of all kinds start being misallocated, bad investments gets made, etc. A recession or slump clears out the rottenness, and starts the admittedly painful process of getting resources reused more usefully and profitably.
These economists also concluded the worst thing a gov't can do is trying to prevent recessions, that doing so merely makes the inevitable pain worse and needlessly prolonged. At best, should provide only short term assistance, till the economy recovers.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment