The Dangerous Populist Science of Yuval Noah Harari | Hacker News Reader

The Dangerous Populist Science of Yuval Noah Harari

currentaffairs.org

29 pointsMrsPeaches13 comments

This is an interesting read. I wouldn't be quite as emphatic as the article and headline here are, but personally I had a pretty negative reaction to Sapiens. I can't totally describe why – it was something like an impression that the neatness, cuteness, and elegance of many of the ideas and principles described in it were just a paper-thin veneer over a much more complex and messy and ambiguous reality.

I don't think I realised until I saw this article that reading it gave me a the constant back-of-the-mind feeling that I was reading a story. Kind of like a string of assertions with little-to-no real meat on them. I felt like I was being told "this is what happened", rather than "here's what I think might have happened and why".

I know it's just pop-science and all and absolutely has it's place – it's wildly popular and people obviously find meaning and value in it (and as someone who hasn't sold 23 million books I'm no expert). I was just surprised about the buzz when I read it, and how few people I've met who felt the same way.

Please note that much of the books we consider valuable today were neglected at the time of publication. Being a best seller doesn't say much about its value.

If you looking for something more substantive I highly recommend Ideas by Peter Watson: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/408204.Ideas

I was impressed by Sapiens, this probably am biased. But once I read it, I did not really follow Harari as a person, because there was no reason too. I probably just skimmed through a quoter of a book, where the author was speculating about the future or overall going into off-the-ramp speculations, the rest was thoroughly enjoyable and I am yet to find any pop science book where an author does not engage in some speculations. It was a good attempt at looking at the entirety of human history through a lens of evolution, biology, economy and pure randomness. But it is a pop science, not a research paper. This article, however, read like a pamphlet fueld by jealousy of someone else’ success.

   > earning hundreds of thousands of dollars per speaking appearance.

On par with Hillary Clinton, no?

   > Harari concludes that, “many historical calamities, from deadly wars to ecological catastrophes, have resulted from this over-hasty jump.” As an evolutionary biologist, I have to say: this passage sets my teeth on edge.

It is a speculation, ok. And right now, we are on the brink of a nuclear war, because of one man’s insecurities. So to suggest that our non-linear evolution afforded us means of mass and self-destruction, but no commensurable means of self-control is not such a wild conjecture. And anyway, even we want to look into science of it, there is really no much science to look at. Because when it comes to history of humanity there is a sample of one and fundamental irreproducibility. As you step away from pure biology towards any field that studies human as a species or human societies, it is ridden with unsustained claims and politicization.

It reminds me of Taleb’s work on black swan and skin in the game. Sure, to some devoted followers now everything is a black swan and trump and putin are the champions. But you don’t need to subscribe to his entire philosophy to agree that he brings up many good points, that might have been hidden otherwise.

Please sustain your claim that there isn't science into the study of human evolution. Some rigor is indeed possible, it's pretty easy to say there isn't looking from the outside. Sure you can't apply fancy statistics or mathematical proof. But just to sustain that by not doing it you don't have nothing to gain from a study more serious that Harari's is a big claim that needs justification. Also your claim about Harari's conjecture being somehow relevant because Putin is a dictator is just meaningless.

A note: I find it disturbing that an historian is so much paid and supported by various questionable people. The politicisation might be just there. Why is he the only historian paid that much, while at the same time providing a view of history no other historian agrees to (in serious publications)?

I found sapiens to be a frustrating read with endless talking-out-of-your-arse speculation that I would expect from an undergrad with delusions of grandeur.

I generally recommend this book as a much better survey of the history of humanity: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/408204.Ideas

My review of Sapiens:

"Lesson Relearned: First scan the expert reviews" [2021]

"Sapiens is "folk history", feel good stuff that sounds true, because you've heard it before. First concern was really good description of perennial tension (liberty vs freedom) followed by incorrect definition of cognitive dissonance. Oops. I tried to power thru the section about money. As others noted, though he cites Graeber, he apparently hasn't read Graeber. So then I remembered to consult r/askhistorians' wiki. Oh. Sapiens has been widely debunked, refuted. For example, his neanderthals vs sapiens narrative is decades out of date. I don't mind coloring book (abridged, simplified) versions of history. They can be great intros. But life's too short for "not even wrong". And it seems as though Harari hasn't handled the critics very well (defensive, no updates). Too bad."

FWIW, Here's those r/askhistorians criticisms too:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/historians_views...

Yuval Noah Harari says civilization was a mistake but doesn't follow up with any plan for getting rid of it

Could have fooled me: It certainly looks as though Harari's developed quite a detailed and viable plan for getting rid of civilization for Klaus Schwab and the execrable World Economic Forum and its private jet setting supporters...

For all that, he is less dangerous than Malcolm Gladwell.

Genuinely curious, why what's wrong with Gladwell?

If you didn't know what it means to "sensationalize", you could either consult a dictionary or read anything by Malcolm Gladwell

He is very good at sounding reasonable. But he very strongly believes in might makes right, and that rich people deserve all they have, and that whatever they want, everyone should want for them.

In an interview, he explains that he hates that people root for the underdog. In his view, whoever is on top is there because that is where they belong. Period.

He is far from alone in this, but is much better than most at dressing it up for public consumption.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com