What good is studying/researching/doing history?

[klr]

...

People study history, but how often do they use it to make wiser decisions? If it happens very often, it's hidden from me.

Do you think that your own knowledge of history (esp. Korean history) has helped you to better understand the people you live and work with right now?

[charlou]

Why single out history as having such little value? If we're going to look at subjects that are suspect, what about philosophy, economics, psychology, sociology, literature and on and on. Information about any subject area is only as good as what we do with that information, and, in my experience, nobody approaches study and research without some kind of cultural bias.

What would you suggest that people study and research, the sciences? As a young man, I was a science (particularly chemistry) and math whiz, and I started college as a chem major. When I actually looked at what chemists did, I started changing majors, and, yes, I eventually ended up a history major with an English minor. Hey, to get a degree, you eventually had to declare a major in something, and sex, drugs and rock n' roll looked like more fun anyway. In looking back, I can't say that I've ever regreted not becoming a chemist.

Let's face it, history and many other subjects are not exact sciences. Much of science is hardly an exact science. The scientific method may be a pure thing, in and of itself, but when it gets into the hands of people, it is subject to human error, outside influences, backstabbing colleagues who steal your research and a host of other problems. Would you prefer a world full of scientists who have no sense of history, culture and tradition?

Many of us enjoy studying and researching history just for its entertainment value, and there's something to be said for having some knowledge of history to qualify as a "well rounded person" in the real world. Do people learn from history? Some do, and some don't, but, regardless of what you think of it, history is going to be with us for a long time.

A science major learing about the developments in the field is not comparable to a historian doing history. It's just learing science. History is not mere chronology; it's interpreting records and evidence into a meaningful story, an attempt to explain what is in terms of what was. In its most ambitious form, it tries to predict what will be based on what is/was. I do value history as a legitimate hobby or intellectual exercise. I'm quite interested in certain areas of history. What I'm asking is whether or not history is actually, IRL, useful, except for anything more than entertainment. I don't see much evidence that the study of history has guided us to a better way of life. I'm not convinced - yet - that it acutally, IRL, can. I don't want to see it disappear, I'm just thinking that statements such as 'Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it' and the like are just rhetoric. People study history, but how often do they use it to make wiser decisions? If it happens very often, it's hidden from me.

Perhaps ... people are inclined to better understanding if they're learning from experience rather than 'received knowledge'. By experience, in this context, I mean taking the study of history and actively applying it to what we know about the present, rather than just being presented with it as 'stodgy' facts about the past.

[FBM]

Once a sufficient number of people study history sufficiently, they'll wake up to the fact that the vast majority of humans are pawns to be moved about at the whim of rulers, be those rulers tin-pot dictators or giant corporations.

True enough, but when are "a sufficient number of people" going to stop ogling Lady Gaga, et al, long enough to do that? Realistically, not hypotheticall, I mean.

And you "don't understand why it's considered to be anything more than a (legitimate) hobby, and why it's a part of core curricula, rather than an elective subject"? If it's pointless, why not restrict education to subjects that are necessary to produce factory hands, engineers, and skills that are necessary to maintain the superstructures necessary for each ruling oligarchy's means to keep ruling over its industrial and military cannon-fodder? Come to think of it, what do you think you are actually doing when you teach English to Koreans?

I'm not advocating any such restriction on education. History has its place, but I'm questioning whether or not it actually produces results IRL wrt to, in particular, our leaders choosing the most effective response to international tensions. I see history as taking the back seat to immediate (usually petty) concerns. The importance of history in education seems to be over-inflated. It's very interesting and I feel better for knowing the history that I do, but except for making us feel more educated, what good does it actually do? I'm very willing to change my tune in the face of a few concrete examples.

[Svartalf]

What good is studying/researching/doing history?

Really, none, unless you're planning on being a history professor. At least that's the conclusion I came to as a history major. I didn't become a history professor, so it's done me a lot of good.

About the same good that majoring in English lang and lit has done me... I still enjoy history for its own sake.

[charlou]

What I'm asking is whether or not history is actually, IRL, useful, except for anything more than entertainment. I don't see much evidence that the study of history has guided us to a better way of life. I'm not convinced - yet - that it acutally, IRL, can.

As an academic study, I don't know, but from an observational anthropological (science, evolution, human development) pov, yes, I think it's absolutely important.

[klr]

If you know your history, Then you would know where you coming from ...



As well as enjoying history for it's own sake* , history gives me a better understanding of the world I live in today. The world is the way it is for a reason (a great many reasons actually). We are intelligent and social beings. Wanting to better understand the context we find ourselves in is not only a natural state of affairs, it's also beneficial.

*It's a lot better than fiction IMHO, because it's real.

[FBM]

...

People study history, but how often do they use it to make wiser decisions? If it happens very often, it's hidden from me.

Do you think that your own knowledge of history (esp. Korean history) has helped you to better understand the people you live and work with right now?

Yes, but only in a relatively minor way. My ability to get along with the people around me is more the product of direct experience coupled with compassion and respect. Out of compassion and respect, I learn Korean history. That enables me to have more informed conversations, but I don't believe the history I learn from official sources any more than I believe what's written in the Bible. I learn Korean history to find out what the people around me believe, not because I think that the taught version is accurate. What I see locally is that people who are taught the 'official' history (and believe it), are more than anything making themselves pawns of those in power who write the history. I'm afraid of history in the hands of the government, and I'm not sure that independent historians have produced anything that the common person can use in everyday life to make better decisions. Again, with a few examples, I'd change my tune. I do enjoy learning history, I just don't see it as doing much to teach me how to make decisions. I get much more of that from memory of direct experiences, trial-and-error, etc., and I think just about everybody else I meet IRL do much the same. I sure as shit could be wrong, but I need some evidence to convince me.

[klr]

...

People study history, but how often do they use it to make wiser decisions? If it happens very often, it's hidden from me.

Do you think that your own knowledge of history (esp. Korean history) has helped you to better understand the people you live and work with right now?

Yes, but only in a relatively minor way. My ability to get along with the people around me is more the product of direct experience coupled with compassion and respect. Out of compassion and respect, I learn Korean history. That enables me to have more informed conversations, but I don't believe the history I learn from official sources any more than I believe what's written in the Bible. I learn Korean history to find out what the people around me believe, not because I think that the taught version is accurate. What I see locally is that people who are taught the 'official' history (and believe it), are more than anything making themselves pawns of those in power who write the history. I'm afraid of history in the hands of the government, and I'm not sure that independent historians have produced anything that the common person can use in everyday life to make better decisions. Again, with a few examples, I'd change my tune. I do enjoy learning history, I just don't see it as doing much to teach me how to make decisions. I get much more of that from memory of direct experiences, trial-and-error, etc., and I think just about everybody else I meet IRL do much the same. I sure as shit could be wrong, but I need some evidence to convince me.

I wasn't actually thinking of "government approved" history, but you've actually brought up a very important point. So many school history curriculums are biased to some degree or other, and that in itself plays a large part in shaping peoples' outlook and behaviour. Understanding how and why that happens is an exercise in history study in itself.

[FBM]

Quick note: The subject line is misleading, I think, and that's my fault. It seems to imply that I'm trying to say that the study of history is totally without value. That's not what I mean. I only mean to deflate what I perceive to be its over-inflated importance. In my opinion, we're conditioned to believe that the study of history can give us some guiding wisdom that will enable us to eventually make perfect decisions in response to prevailing conditions. I just don't see that happening, but I'm open to evidence to the contrary and will reverse my opinion if presented with convincing evidence. I enjoy reading some history, but only as a pasttime, not as a guide. I think direct experience is so much more powerful as to make the study of history negligible as a guide for decision-making. That's all. History is good, but not that good.

[klr]

Quick note: The subject line is misleading, I think, and that's my fault. It seems to imply that I'm trying to say that the study of history is totally without value. That's not what I mean. I only mean to deflate what I perceive to be its over-inflated importance. In my opinion, we're conditioned to believe that the study of history can give us some guiding wisdom that will enable us to eventually make perfect decisions in response to prevailing conditions. I just don't see that happening, but I'm open to evidence to the contrary and will reverse my opinion if presented with convincing evidence. I enjoy reading some history, but only as a pasttime, not as a guide. I think direct experience is so much more powerful as to make the study of history negligible as a guide for decision-making. That's all. History is good, but not that good.

Direct experience can only teach you so much. In your own personal circumstances, you are likely to experience only a small subset of possible scenarios first-hand. History allows you to know of and understand so much more in the wider human experience, and to extrapolate in ways that can benefit you in your own life.

My own experience BTW is that there is not nearly enough emphasis on the study of history, and it's value. But that's just me. YMMV.

[LaMont Cranston]

FBM, If the yardstick you're using is that the study of history should enable us to eventually make perfect decisions, then history is going to fall short, but so is just about any other subject.

For most of us, when we look at the world, we see a mixture of positives and negatives. We can appreciate the beauty of Nature, all the while knowing that horrendous destruction of the environment is going on, including the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Some of us look for the positives in life, if for no other reason than it feels better to be an optimist instead of a pessimist. Feeling positive requires an expenditure of energy, but so does feeling miserable, and feeling positive pays better dividends.

In the case of history, I can see that there are at least 4 trends that have been happening on a global scale, and, mind you, these are all works in progress. The trends I see happening are as follows:
1-Since 1776, there has been a global movement toward more democratically-based forms of government. I do get it that all of these democracies (actually, they are all mixes of democratic ideals and socialism) have as much corruption, oppression and hypocrisy going on in them as they do, but that seems to be a function of any governing system. At the very minimum, they are based on principles that include the idea that it is possible for individuals to be free human beings.
2-On a world-wide basis, there is ever-more involvement of women and minorities in the social, cultural, political and economic destinies of their countries.
3-There is an ever-increasing access to information that is available to virtually everybody on the planet. Even though there are repressive governments in places like North Korea, China and the Middle East who have the goal of suppressing information, in the long run, they are doomed to fail.
4-The world continues to move in the direction of a global economy.
Regardless of how you or anybody else feels about these trends, it appears to me that history is taking us in these directions.

If you are looking for evidence of the value of history, how do you feel about Martin Luther King and Gandhi? From what I can tell, MLK looked at Gandhi and other historical examples, and Gandhi looked at history to see what would work to achieve freedom for his country. Is the world a better place because they did what they did? I'd say so.

[Pensioner]

I really do appreciate that, and again, I'm not saying that knowing history doesn't make life more interesting, only that it's not much use for anything else. That said, the Third Reich and Stalin found uses for "history", as do China and N. Korea. (Inventing, revising it for their political ends, that is.)

Detectives are historians. Researchers are historians. They both collect data and create a picture from it. The detective wasn't there at the time the crime was committed. (Unless Internal Affairs is tracking him, of course.) So he has to look at what other people tell him and the physical evidence available. Historians use oral statements and documentary sources to recreate an event.

You use history to determine if you're going to buy a particular brand of booze. "Last time that shit nearly killed me. I'd better buy some more." History tells you that NK is a problem for you. And WHY. That's the important part of history, WHY. I used to tell my student to answer a question like it was a party invitation:

Who
What
When
Where and
WHY

The WHY was the part where they made their points, the rest fed the WHY. WHY is the Middle East a mess? WHY does China worry about Russia? WHY?

Yep I agree with that. A wise man does not learn from his mistakes but some other buggers mistakes. We learn from history, not very often these days.

[klr]

I really do appreciate that, and again, I'm not saying that knowing history doesn't make life more interesting, only that it's not much use for anything else. That said, the Third Reich and Stalin found uses for "history", as do China and N. Korea. (Inventing, revising it for their political ends, that is.)

Detectives are historians. Researchers are historians. They both collect data and create a picture from it. The detective wasn't there at the time the crime was committed. (Unless Internal Affairs is tracking him, of course.) So he has to look at what other people tell him and the physical evidence available. Historians use oral statements and documentary sources to recreate an event.

You use history to determine if you're going to buy a particular brand of booze. "Last time that shit nearly killed me. I'd better buy some more." History tells you that NK is a problem for you. And WHY. That's the important part of history, WHY. I used to tell my student to answer a question like it was a party invitation:

Who
What
When
Where and
WHY

The WHY was the part where they made their points, the rest fed the WHY. WHY is the Middle East a mess? WHY does China worry about Russia? WHY?

Yep I agree with that. A wise man does not learn from his mistakes but some other buggers mistakes. We learn from history, not very often these days.

That's what I was trying to say earlier, but you said it better.

[floppit]

Reading the OP the first thing that struck me is history as a subject matter has superb potential for teaching excellent reasoning skills and polishing up skepticism. I'm quite grateful to anyone whose given it the time to study carefully, while I might not be in the position to call the politicians and religious nuts on their bullshit history - they are and I have frequently enjoyed the show.

I love stories, evidence and science - of course I would have a soft spot for historical research done well.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

To learn why history is important, look at the places where it is perverted. In 1995 I gave a stack of atlases to Russian professor visiting Purdue. They were on WWI and WWII and he didn't recognize most of the battle names on the maps. They had been edited out of Soviet history.