On Historians and Futurists
Futurists, as the term implies, look forward, rather than back. They begin with intuitive assumptions and engage in a variety of means of extrapolation ranging from ( among many) logical-philosophical thought experiments mapped out as decision trees to the construction of imaginative but complex scenarios for “free play” exercises to building models of great mathematical rigor. Futurists scan widely for potential variables and patterns. Imagination and synthesis play a significant role in framing the initial starting point for analytical extrapolation. Futurists are t panoramic vision to the historian’s telescope ( or at times, microscope).
The problem with futurists is that their predictions are all too frequently in error, generally suffering from a bias toward dystopian outcomes, overestimation of the linear downstream effect of favored variables relative to the effects of the variable’s interaction with all other variables along with overestimating of the synchronicity of all variables (most variables are asynchronous – otherwise the human race would be in a near-constant state of catastrophe. The “perfect storm” rarely comes together). Their scenarios, in other words, lack the level of “friction” present in historical case studies, much less that of real life.
Futurists can inject a far greater range of possibilities to consider for causation for historians while historians can help bring greater realism to futurist scenarios. The two fields, both of which must deal with uncertainty, are ready-made for collaboration
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
Younghusband:
May 4th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Zenpundit, Great post. First off I would like to qualify my original comment and emphasize that I did notice your use of the term “complementary.” I wasn’t challenging your conclusions but was trying to draw a distinction between your wish of how things should be (one that I share, I might add) and how things actually are (at least with respect to my personal experience.) I share the sense that the methodologies are complementary. What my comment called for was an analytical comparison of the various methodologies to establish if any actual functional compatibility exists. I went through your post and pulled out some methodological keywords that you use to describe futurism and history. I separated them further into two categories: quantitative and qualitative. This may be considered “heuristic bias,” but I would like to use this dichotomy as I think it is the faultline between historians and social scientists. Futurism Quantitative computer modeling prediction markets mathematics extrapolation* Qualitative decision trees scenario-building extrapolation* Historical Quantitative nil Qualitative causal explanation context primary/secondary material “discrete facts” A brief glance shows a gap in the qualitative area reflected in your comment that “History is a craft, not a science.” However, futurism is also about the “craft” of qualitative analysis as well, so the two are not necessary diametric. One common aspect of both fields is the philosophic, specifically the epistimelogical consequences (once again I would like to do a double-take at the term “discrete facts”) and the eternal quest to pare down bias. This is an area that I think could be explored more. If you know any good journal articles about this let me know. Moving on, I would like to challenge one of your statements: “The problem with futurists is that their predictions are all too frequently in error.” Error denotes precision. Futurists are in the forecasting business not the prediction business. If a futurist constructs a number of variant scenarios, none of which exactly fit the present conditions, but are able to be used to inform decision-making, where is the error? The fact that the scenarios could be drawn upon for guidance makes the futurist a success. Qualifying uncertainty is a key aspect of forecasting, one that is often overlooked by the public. Hey, we all can’t be fans of Sherman Kent.
Younghusband:
May 4th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Your comment field looks to have eaten my HTML.
Younghusband:
May 4th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
I reposted my comment here which might be a little easier to read.
Links for 8 May 2008 « ubiwar:
May 8th, 2008 at 11:36 am
[…] finally, Zenpundit’s been busy, and has replied to a recent challenge, On Historians and Futurists. Excellent post, and I really must […]
Historian vs. Futurist – audio now available « ubiwar . conflict in n dimensions:
August 28th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
[…] in ubiwar After my recent post, Zenpundit’s subsequent comments and his discussion with Younghusband on the issue, the .mp3 of the Long Now Foundation debate between Niall Ferguson and Peter Schwartz […]