Popular misconceptions about pre-modern History

The semantic problem i have with people who frequently claim science is "neutral" or "above politics" is that the very concept of political neutrality in itself is difficult to define, if it even exists. By claiming that scientific observations are an absolute truth, one puts them in a position of hierarchal superiority over all other possible claims about the matter at hand -- hierarchies are not apolitical, and it is obvious that a certain scientific claim or discovery will slide into the slot of a certain ideology trying to push an argument or narrative. Further danger comes when exact science, which is prone to historical mutations and human error, is the one occupying the top chair, which makes questioning its precepts paramount to maintaining an equilibrium. I disagree that science should be "deposed" as the absolute truth in regards to political and social matters, but what i'm stating is that we should be careful when characterizing it as "apolitical", which it is not. Arguing about the political implications of science is not "being an ideologue".

Moreover, i wouldn't discard the possibility that Peterson was indeed acting very incompetently prior to his debate with the other scholar. He was aware that he would happen months prior, thus had the capacity to prepare for it, but somehow stumbled into the scene talking about an entirely different subject than what was planned and openly admitting that he didn't even read primary sources on the topic he tried to switch it to. I'm not sure about you, but that doesn't feel like the behavior of a particularly smart man.
 
Last edited:
The semantic problem i have with people who frequently claim science is "neutral" or "above politics" is that the very concept of political neutrality in itself is difficult to define, if it even exists. By claiming that scientific observations are an absolute truth, one puts them in a position of hierarchal superiority over all other possible claims about the matter at hand -- hierarchies are not apolitical, and it is obvious that a certain scientific claim or discovery will slide into the slot of a certain ideology trying to push an argument or narrative.

No, it's just a reference to the is/ought distinction. Science tells you how things are, but a description of how things are isn't in itself enough to tell you what to do; for that, you need other, non-descriptive, premises, but these premises are not scientific ones.
 
No, it's just a reference to the is/ought distinction. Science tells you how things are, but a description of how things are isn't in itself enough to tell you what to do.
I'd digress on that statement -- the scientific consensus tells us that the way we interact with our environment to extract resources to fuel a wasteful consumer culture is eroding the planet away and might cause serious societal collapse in the near future, so we absolutely have to rethink the way we treat our planet if we are to maintain a semblance of following the precepts our civilizations were founded on.
By "non-descriptive unscientific premises directing our course of action", do you mean ethics?
 

Skallagrim

Banned
All you're actually arguing is that the IQ test is really good at measuring pattern-matching abilities. Fine, that's hardly useless, but it's not "intelligence," much less "general" intelligence, and it certainly shouldn't be called that. The vast majority of people think of something far broader when discussing "intelligence," and using the term for such a narrow concept is seriously misleading.

Pattern recognition is hardly all of it. Like I said earlier: abstract reasoning. Understanding how things relate to each other is a major factor because you didn't just see things and repeat them or memorise them, but you have to understand them and their actual meaning. So there are questions about concepts and definitions, questions about logical sequences, questions about patterns, questions about visual puzzles, etc. etc.


The semantic problem i have with people who frequently claim science is "neutral" or "above politics" is that the very concept of political neutrality in itself is difficult to define, if it even exists. By claiming that scientific observations are an absolute truth, one puts them in a position of hierarchal superiority over all other possible claims about the matter at hand -- hierarchies are not apolitical, and it is obvious that a certain scientific claim or discovery will slide into the slot of a certain ideology trying to push an argument or narrative.

Facts are neutral (in the fact that they do not yield to any opinion), and certainly above politics (in the same sense, namely that ignoring facts for political reasons does not negate those facts). Science is a method, and a method that is not so much above politics as it is divorced from them. Science demands that we make clear our premises, form a hypothesis, devise a way to test it via experiment (which must be repeatable by others), leading us to conclusions that can be inspected and qualified. This allows us, if not to find the truth, then to approximate it as best we can, and in a way that invites others to best our attempts via the same scientific method.

That is inherently apolitical. If that process becomes political, it is no longer scientific. What people do with the findings of science is often very political, but that is another matter. To conflate the two is not reasonable.


Moreover, i wouldn't discard the possibility that Peterson was indeed acting very incompetently prior to his debate with the other scholar. He was aware that he would happen months prior, thus had the capacity to prepare for it, but somehow stumbled into the scene talking about an entirely different subject than what was planned and openly admitting that he didn't even read primary sources on the topic he tried to switch it to.

I cannot judge this. I can only say that it isn't an indication of IQ, and you appear to persist in thinking that it is. Yet I have argued, at some length, that intelligence is hardly the whole of our mental ability. It may well be true that Peterson has a very high IQ, and that -- for instance -- he is also a highly arrogant narcissist who -- because of his personality -- didn't prepare because he simply refused to entertain the notion that anyone could best him in a debate. (That's a hypothetical, by the way; I know next to nothing about the man.)

The only way to really know anything detailed about Peterson's IQ is to have him take a test. Otherwise, it's all guesswork based on contaminated data (e.g. "he does x instead of more efficient y, which can indicate a lack of cognitive skills... or maybe just that he's lazy and x happened because he couldn't be arsed to do y, all the while knowing that y was possible").


Anyway, fellows, this is starting to derail the thread, and I for one am fairly sure I've made my point.
 
Pattern recognition is hardly all of it. Like I said earlier: abstract reasoning. Understanding how things relate to each other is a major factor because you didn't just see things and repeat them or memorise them, but you have to understand them and their actual meaning. So there are questions about concepts and definitions, questions about logical sequences, questions about patterns, questions about visual puzzles, etc. etc.
But how can we consider certain personal capabilities as "uniquely intelligent" in the situation that they find themselves in if human knowledge is built from memorizing past cues? I'm afraid it certainly still is an arbitrary definition because intelligence, as a concept, is inherently vague.
But alas, i can stop for now, if y'all just want to talk about another thing.
 
I'd digress on that statement -- the scientific consensus tells us that the way we interact with our environment to extract resources to fuel a wasteful consumer culture is eroding the planet away and might cause serious societal collapse in the near future, so we absolutely have to rethink the way we treat our planet if we are to maintain a semblance of following the precepts our civilizations were founded on.
By "non-descriptive unscientific premises directing our course of action", do you mean ethics?

Ethics, value-judgements, that sort of thing. For example, in the instance you give, we'd have to have an extra premise like "Societal collapse is bad" in order to have a reason for acting based on the scientific consensus. We tend not to notice such premises when they're very intuitive and widely-shared, but nevertheless they're still there.

But how can we consider certain personal capabilities as "uniquely intelligent" in the situation that they find themselves in if human knowledge is built from memorizing past cues? I'm afraid it certainly still is an arbitrary definition because intelligence, as a concept, is inherently vague.
But alas, i can stop for now, if y'all just want to talk about another thing.

Human knowledge is built from memorising past cues, but it's not confined to it. My pet fish can memorise past cues ("Top taken off tank --> food"), but they can't do abstract reasoning based on them.
 
The Persian Army was weak and feeble on account their lack of heavy infantry: Hey just because they were consistently miss-used durring the Greco-Persian Wars doesn't mean their cavalry and archers didn't exist/weren't viable fighting forces.
 
I thought it might be useful to have a thread that tries to clear up some popular misconception about pre-modern civilisations. People are free to add nuggets of information to this thread, and hopefully this will clear up some misunderstanding people might get from pop history books/historical myths that have been perpetuated since the enlightenment.

1. The Roman Empire did not fell in 476. It's the end of an independent Emperor in the Western half of the empire, but control of the western provinces technically went back to the Emperor in Constantinople. Various barbarian kings continues to acknowledge the Emperor in Constantinople as their superior in some sense or another.
Ancient commoners being uncritical and without individual will.
 
Some myths about hair:
Medieval women with long free flowing hair. In reality, medieval women always wore their hair up and it was usually covered as well.
The idea that everyone in the 18th century wore wigs. It was really only wealthy men. Women wore their natural hair covered with powder. And the wigs weren’t shiny white either.
 
I disagree, they were primitive. That is what primitave means after all. It means they were less technologically advanced. And they were.
"Primitive" implies that they are somehow closer to the "original" experience of humanity than others, as if the evolution of human societies is a straight line, when this isn't even necessarily the case- many "primitive" tribes are living as hunter-gatherers because they had been earlier displaced from sedentary society by colonizers, for instance. Looking to groups such as these as templates for what prehistoric life might have been like is thus rather problematic, as their situation does not directly parallel that of neolithic peoples from several thousands of years ago.
 
Some myths about hair:
Medieval women with long free flowing hair. In reality, medieval women always wore their hair up and it was usually covered as well.
The idea that everyone in the 18th century wore wigs. It was really only wealthy men. Women wore their natural hair covered with powder. And the wigs weren’t shiny white either.
Powdered wigs also had been worn by house servants and oifficiers. In some way they had been a
similiar to the Old Egyptians wigs.
 
I thought it might be useful to have a thread that tries to clear up some popular misconception about pre-modern civilisations. People are free to add nuggets of information to this thread, and hopefully this will clear up some misunderstanding people might get from pop history books/historical myths that have been perpetuated since the enlightenment.

1. The Roman Empire did not fell in 476. It's the end of an independent Emperor in the Western half of the empire, but control of the western provinces technically went back to the Emperor in Constantinople. Various barbarian kings continues to acknowledge the Emperor in Constantinople as their superior in some sense or another.
Germania had been a forrest/swamp without roads. The Babarians looking like in ,Gladiator'.
 
Byzantion, that’s interesting. I’ll have to look into that.
On a somewhat related theme, a lot of movies taking place in medieval/renaissance times seem to have men wearing boots everywhere. Tights and shoes for men did exist. It wasn’t just riding boots all the time.
 
Ok this Is a obvious historical misconception

uu5LCMU_d.jpg
Another misconception is that people in earlier historic times already had been geriatric old people very early.
 
Another misconception is that people in earlier historic times already had been geriatric old people very early.

A lot more people died at 40 in 900 AD than today, judging by grave finds. A much higher % of grave finds from 900 AD shows permanent damage on otherwise young people than today. Yes, individual people could indeed be hale into the old age, but on average, they really would have lived less long and been in much worse health than the average person today, even excluding child mortality.

It's not good to overcorrect in the other direction.
 
The idea that the Romans conquered the Mediterranean with a professional army; see also the idea that the Spartans were professional soldiers.
The Spartans also hadn't been those ,300' guys. This Spartan whorship is sometimes quite anoying in the same way it Is like with the Vikings. Also the Spartans didn't call themselves Spartans, but Lacadonians ( at least Thats what they we're called ?)
 
The Spartans also hadn't been those ,300' guys. This Spartan whorship is sometimes quite anoying in the same way it Is like with the Vikings. Also the Spartans didn't call themselves Spartans, but Lacadonians ( at least Thats what they we're called ?)
Sparta's a fascinating political organism, and were pretty successful militarily, but for very different reasons than most people imagine. Sparta was the name of the 'city' (actually 5 villages up to a kilometer apart), but Lakedaimon was the name of the state, and they're usually called Lakedaimonians in the sources; when they're talking about citizens specifically, they usually use the terms Spartiate or Homoi.
 
I've got shit IQ. My sister could understand all those tests and score well. But until it was explained to me, I often saw 2 possible solutions in every one.

There are several averages - mean is not all. And obviously living to an old age depends on not dying earlier. This in reality says: if you don't die as an infant you have a good chance of being a healthy child, if you don't die as a child you have a good chance of being a healthy young adult, if you don't die as a young adult you have a good chance of making it to 40, if you don't die at 40 you have a good chance of making it to 60, etc

The differences are in the numbers left at each checkpoint. But if you are healthy at 40 you will probably reach 60, but if you were sickly as a child you probably won't reach 20. The probabilities are composiite

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Top