Psychohistory | Hacker News Reader

Psychohistory

en.wikipedia.org

I wasn't aware this was an actual field of study. I fully expected to be directed to the article in the disambiguation at the top, about Asimov's Foundation series.

They make an interesting pair, with this real life version focused on the motivations of an individual and how they shaped our world, and the fictional version focused on the motivations of large groups, and how they will shape the world to come.

Psychohistory is also one of the most interesting theories of science fiction. Here's a recent thread on The Foundation: will psychohistory ever become reality?https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9052538

It should be said that psychohistory is not taken very seriously by most historians.

> On the other hand, the end of swaddling and wet-nursing made possible the explosive modern takeoff in scientific advance.

I don't see a citation for this one and I'm not sure why it would be true

I recently re-read Asimov's Foundation series after having read it long long time ago as a 12 year old. I was kind of disappointed.

Counterpoint: I've re-read it every five years or so since I was about 22, when I first read it (actually, I'd read some of the first one when I was much younger, maybe 6th grade, and got overwhelmed with the span of time and number of characters, but never finished it until I was about 22). I've loved it every time, and I'm just about due for another re-read and I'm looking forward to it.

There are some weaknesses, sure. Asimov himself was even aware of some of his weaknesses as a writer and talked about them occasionally in his memoirs and such. But, aside from HHGTTG and Dune, I can't think of anything that I've re-read more often, or that has been a more satisfying part of my reading life (and I read a lot). Asimov remains my favorite author after all these years. Admittedly, some of that is the "old friend" factor. But, nonetheless, I believe it is very solid sci-fi, and recommend it to anyone who hasn't read it.

I just read it for the first time ever (I know, right? I'll turn in my nerd card at the door) a couple of years ago.

I thought the original trilogy (Foundation, Foundation and Empire, Second Foundation) was amazing.

I also thought Asimov really, really, really should have stopped there.

I loved the series until the Gaia plotline. The last book was lacking the quality and depth of the original series.

I was really into it as a young teenager as well, but when I tried reading it a few years ago or so I couldn't get more than a hundred pages. I had the same experience with Catch 22.

I don't know what changed - it's a shame, since I was really looking forward to it. It's possible I'll give it another shot in a few years.

I just read Catch-22 (for the first time) because it was on the USMA reading list. I soldiered through it... but... meh.

Could you elaborate, while keeping it spoiler-free?

Poor writing was my first and foremost gripe: obvious character motives and an almost total lack of surprising plot twists. To be fair, I also re-read The Star Diaries which I first read (and loved!) in my early teens and I had the same issues with the author's workshop. That being said I think Asimov's prose hasn't aged very well in the light of actual technological progress (information storage and retrieval) and you just keep smiling while reading about Encyclopedia Galactica.

I read it as an adult and was disappointed by the flatness of the characters and the almost-total absence of any female characters.

To clarify: I'm not saying that people should shoehorn women into stories to satisfy a quota, I'm saying that stories that include women are simply more interesting, because they display a wider range of humanity and of the human experience.

Or, to put it another way, it's just boring to read a story where all the characters fit within a very narrow range of personality.

I donno, Plato's Dialouges are pretty interesting.

Sure, but 2500 years passed since and you'd expect writing to get a bit better. And yet Homer's characters are way more nuanced than Asimov's. Also, in Plato's Dialogs characters are completely irrelevant and are merely instruments that directly represent philosophical standpoints.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com