The Cambridge Chat Thread - it&#x27;s over 90,000!

OP

Original post by Craghyrax

I now find History very boring. But I'm indebted to it because it led me to the social sciences. At HIGCSE, studying modern world history made me start thinking hard about why society was the way it is, and what drove human behaviour, and it got me interested in poverty, development and institutions like the UN. It was only later that I realised I don't really care about the particular fine grained details of specific points in history, but prefer to focus on bigger, universal principles and truths about human nature.

I don't understand how you can find history boring as a social scientist. It's a discipline that charts human behaviour over centuries! It's far more than just knowing dates and battles - much more about the whys than the whats. It's an incredible thing to study imo, because it teaches us so much about our present and future as well as our past.

Reply 8462

Chubasco

1

We did the compulsory Nazi Germany topic, plus Liberal Welfare Reforms and prohibition in the US for GCSE, and then more Nazi Germany and early twentieth-century Britain (more Liberal Welfare Reforms) for AS (and then I dropped it because I couldn't face any more Nazi Germany. I mean, I actually thought that doing A2 Maths would be preferable :rolleyes:

). History was always my best subject at school though (well, my parents are both history teachers...) and even after 4 years of doing a languages degree, I think I'm probably much more of a historian at heart.

And I do know what the October Revolution was (when I was a child, I used to read my parents' history textbooks "for fun"...).

Straw poll: how many people here have heard of Salvador Allende and/or Augusto Pinochet? And what do you associate with either name?

Reply 8463

Original post by Zoedotdot

I don't understand how you can find history boring as a social scientist. It's a discipline that charts human behaviour over centuries! It's far more than just knowing dates and battles - much more about the whys than the whats. It's an incredible thing to study imo, because it teaches us so much about our present and future as well as our past.

Well that's my point. I'm interested in the human behaviour that it sheds insight on, but not on all the dates and finer details. Social historical analysis is used quite a lot in the social sciences. Whenever I read it, though, I remember the general points it helped inform me on, not the particulars. I just find the particulars boring.

I loved History when I was at school. But now I've found Social Sciences I enjoy it much more.

Reply 8464

Chubasco

1

Original post by Craghyrax

Well that's my point. I'm interested in the human behaviour that it sheds insight on, but not on all the dates and finer details. Social historical analysis is used quite a lot in the social sciences. Whenever I read it, though, I remember the general points it helped inform me on, not the particulars. I just find the particulars boring.

I loved History when I was at school. But now I've found Social Sciences I enjoy it much more.

I think you would probably have enjoyed a course I took on my year abroad, which was about memory and how people have interpreted various recent historical events and processes. So we looked at why some people thought that, for instance, the Chilean dictatorship was bad and others didn't and we went to interview people and find out what their memories of various historical events were. Lots of ethnographic research and very few dates (because what people thought/remembered was just as important as what might actually have happened).

Reply 8465

OP

Original post by Craghyrax

Well that's my point. I'm interested in the human behaviour that it sheds insight on, but not on all the dates and finer details. Social historical analysis is used quite a lot in the social sciences. Whenever I read it, though, I remember the general points it helped inform me on, not the particulars. I just find the particulars boring.

I loved History when I was at school. But now I've found Social Sciences I enjoy it much more.

Fair enough. Although I think there is a misconception that history is all particulars and rote learning dates when in my experience it is much more about understanding people and society. Even when you go really far back - I'm currently writing an essay on how the adoption of Christianity by Early Rus in 988 has shaped their entire society. Considering how massive Russia is and how important religion has been and is there I find it incredible to think about how one man's decision to go with Orthodox Christianity rather than Islam or Judaism over a millennium ago has changed the whole course of their country.

Exciting anecdote - Prince Vladimir decided not to be a Muslim because Russians like alcohol too much, according to the chronicle :lol:

Reply 8466

Going back to language pedantry, I recently came across a Daily Mail article in which the journalist wrote 'kell surprise' instead of 'quel surprise' :rofl:

I wasn't sure if it was an error, or whether it was an intentional edit in order to avoid confusion among the readers :lol:

(Not that I spelt it perfectly, but you know).

Original post by Zoedotdot

Fair enough. Although I think there is a misconception that history is all particulars and rote learning dates when in my experience it is much more about understanding people and society. Even when you go really far back - I'm currently writing an essay on how the adoption of Christianity by Early Rus in 988 has shaped their entire society. Considering how massive Russia is and how important religion has been and is there I find it incredible to think about how one man's decision to go with Orthodox Christianity rather than Islam or Judaism over a millennium ago has changed the whole course of their country.

I don't disagree, and I think I need to make it clear that I'm not suggesting that history isn't important and interesting with respect to lots of important questions. I think its more a personality thing. When I read very detailed descriptions of something, I find myself skimming through trying to get to the bottom line, and trying to reach for a wider point or wider issue to connect it to. When I'm in the mood I might read something historical for fun, but I think my personality is just that of not liking being bogged down by specifics and wanting to find universal patterns or rules and to understand those. I think the other thing I struggle with is that for me the present is the most important and compelling, and the type of 'bottom line' I always look for in a historical piece is 'ok, what can that tell me about people today, here and now?'. And if there's a lot of detailed tangents about this or that notable person, that massacre, this treaty, etc. I sort of lose patience and give up.
I'm probably misrepresenting the social sciences. A lot of qualitative research is highly detailed indeed. Somebody might do ethnographic research on a sub culture and come back with several note books of field notes which they convert into really rich, descriptive narrative about that subculture, the people in it, and their experience of life. However for some reason that holds my attention better because it is contemporary rather than in the past.

Original post by Chubasco

I think you would probably have enjoyed a course I took on my year abroad, which was about memory and how people have interpreted various recent historical events and processes. So we looked at why some people thought that, for instance, the Chilean dictatorship was bad and others didn't and we went to interview people and find out what their memories of various historical events were. Lots of ethnographic research and very few dates (because what people thought/remembered was just as important as what might actually have happened).

Yes that does sound interesting. That's probably more on the boundary between social sciences and history. There really is a lot of overlap. I think lots of people in social science departments actually end up doing historical research because they enjoy it.

Reply 8467

Original post by Zoedotdot

It doesn't really surprise me that people don't know what it is instantly. We all know that Russia had evil tsars and then they were evil communists and now they're evil mafia oil hogs and they're always the baddies in James Bond films because they have evil sounding accents, who cares about the in between bits?

EDIT: Obviously I care.

EDITEDIT: And technically they were evil socialists rather than evil communists, but again, it's rare that anyone makes the distinction.

Nah, my knowledge of Russia doesn't even stretch that far. I'm pretty sure there was some sort of revolution, some sort of cold war(possible commie?) chaps, lots of vodka, and some chap called Rasputin or something. Oh, and Putin.

Edit-that said, I quite liked history, but up to the point I dropped it, we'd pretty much only done Scottish history(might've done a bit on WWI, but really not much).

Reply 8468

Rasputin gave me nightmares :lolwut:

Reply 8469

Sockpirate

15

I gave up history as soon as I could at school (at the age of 13!) - the only things I remember studying were tudors and the crusades. We definitely did no 'modern' history whatsoever. In a way, I quite regret eschewing my historical education, as I literally have no idea about anything important that happened in the past. Maybe I should make that one of my aims for the summer...
and yeah, I had no idea what the October revolution was before googling it.

Reply 8470

OP

Original post by Craghyrax

I don't disagree, and I think I need to make it clear that I'm not suggesting that history isn't important and interesting with respect to lots of important questions. I think its more a personality thing. When I read very detailed descriptions of something, I find myself skimming through trying to get to the bottom line, and trying to reach for a wider point or wider issue to connect it to. When I'm in the mood I might read something historical for fun, but I think my personality is just that of not liking being bogged down by specifics and wanting to find universal patterns or rules and to understand those. I think the other thing I struggle with is that for me the present is the most important and compelling, and the type of 'bottom line' I always look for in a historical piece is 'ok, what can that tell me about people today, here and now?'. And if there's a lot of detailed tangents about this or that notable person, that massacre, this treaty, etc. I sort of lose patience and give up.
I'm probably misrepresenting the social sciences. A lot of qualitative research is highly detailed indeed. Somebody might do ethnographic research on a sub culture and come back with several note books of field notes which they convert into really rich, descriptive narrative about that subculture, the people in it, and their experience of life. However for some reason that holds my attention better because it is contemporary rather than in the past.

Yeah, I think I was just surprised that you didn't love it. But I'm always surprised when people say they find history boring because it is probably my biggest enduring interest. But then I love stories, and history is all one big story told in a million ways by a million people. A lot of my interest in it comes from looking at sources and the kaleidoscope of how events are represented by different people for different reasons. Which feeds hugely into my interest in literature and art and film. And reminds me that I did do the right degree, even if sometimes I wish I'd just done history instead.

Original post by Slumpy

Nah, my knowledge of Russia doesn't even stretch that far. I'm pretty sure there was some sort of revolution, some sort of cold war(possible commie?) chaps, lots of vodka, and some chap called Rasputin or something. Oh, and Putin.

Edit-that said, I quite liked history, but up to the point I dropped it, we'd pretty much only done Scottish history(might've done a bit on WWI, but really not much).

I think my knowledge of maths might actually exceed your knowledge of Russia :p:

Rasputin is interesting - I've seen his penis. Or one of them, at least. I was going to give you a small rundown of what happened in twentieth century Russia but then I figured you probably didn't care :p:

Reply 8471

It could be lupus

12

Original post by Craghyrax

Rasputin gave me nightmares :lolwut:

My friends always used to play this song

Reply 8472

Mr Dactyl

Mark me down as another scientist who doesn't know what it is.

History is one of the areas I think is actually quite exemplary in terms of what syllabuses are available for GCSE and A Level. There's a pretty wide range of things out there, it's just a shame most teachers just choose to do the Nazis ad nauseam. I escaped that for the most part, did the Troubles, the Boer War, masses of pre ww1 German history and the American west.

Reply 8473

Original post by Zoedotdot

I think my knowledge of maths might actually exceed your knowledge of Russia :p:

Rasputin is interesting - I've seen his penis. Or one of them, at least. I was going to give you a small rundown of what happened in twentieth century Russia but then I figured you probably didn't care :p:

If you fancy it, I'd be happy to read it :p:

I do remember reading one of my friend's dissertations on some russian history (reds white and blues or something?), but I was rather more interested in the one on the punic wars, so didn't pay so much attention :p:

Reply 8474

OP

Original post by Slumpy

If you fancy it, I'd be happy to read it :p:

I do remember reading one of my friend's dissertations on some russian history (reds white and blues or something?), but I was rather more interested in the one on the punic wars, so didn't pay so much attention :p:

At a very very basic level (and Leipzig will probably throttle me for over simplifying as she is the Russian historian among us):

There were some tsars, but they sort of sucked because most of the population were really poor and lacking in freedom and food and happiness. There was the industrial revolution, and everyone started moving to the cities and then they were crowded together and lacking in happiness so everyone started to notice more and they did some rioting and uprisings. The tsar kept just killing them, but then he was forced to make a government, but that wasn't very successful because he didn't like their existence so didn't let them do anything. Then there was the first world war and the tsar was a really crap military leader so lots of people died and everyone was really unhappy. So then in 1917 there were two revolutions - in February some middle classish people took over and sent the tsar away but then they sort of sucked too because they carried on with the war and couldn't decide on anything, so in October the Bolsheviks (who were more extreme left) came along and kicked them all out and Lenin took over. At some point the tsar and his family all got shot as well, but I can't remember who shot them. So then Lenin et al pulled out of the first world war to fight a really horrible and bloody civil war with everyone who didn't like them, and then they won, mostly by stealing the poor and unhappy people's food and pretending it was for their own good. Then Lenin decided that everyone was too poor and unhappy so he put a bit of capitalism back into the market, and everyone was a bit like 'errrrrrrrr' but then he died, but not before warning everyone that they shouldn't let Stalin lead the party. Stalin tricked everyone and became a leader. Then he spent a couple of decades killing everyone who he didn't like, especially everyone who did all the important jobs like running everything. However, he also made industry good and and improved social mobility and the status of women. Also people were a bit happier even if they were still hungry because they were socialist. Then there was the second world war and lots and lots and lots and lots of people died, and most of St Petersburg starved to death so nobody was happy at all. But they still won, and they got to keep lots of countries. Stalin died and then Khrushchev took over and he was a little bit nicer and told everyone that Stalin was evil but socialism was still good so people were happy and got to tear down Stalin's statues. But there was a cold war and the space race and they built lots of nuclear weapons so that America couldn't kill everyone. Then Khrushchev also died and there were a lot of really **** leaders who let it all get out of hand and then everyone had enough and decided they didn't want the Soviet Union anymore and started knocking things down, like walls in Berlin. And then there was Putin, and now they're capitalist and there are still lots of poor and unhappy people, so it's basically like being at the beginning of the twentieth century again, except everyone can read and they have Levi's now.

I actually hope none of my lecturers ever read that, as they would probably fail me on the spot for huge generalisations :p:

Reply 8475

Original post by Zoedotdot

I actually hope none of my lecturers ever read that, as they would probably fail me on the spot for huge generalisations :p:

That's a good example of about the amount of detail that sticks in my brain after reading loads of detailed history :wink:

Reply 8476

Original post by Zoedotdot

At a very very basic level (and Leipzig will probably throttle me for over simplifying as she is the Russian historian among us):

There were some tsars, but they sort of sucked because most of the population were really poor and lacking in freedom and food and happiness. There was the industrial revolution, and everyone started moving to the cities and then they were crowded together and lacking in happiness so everyone started to notice more and they did some rioting and uprisings. The tsar kept just killing them, but then he was forced to make a government, but that wasn't very successful because he didn't like their existence so didn't let them do anything. Then there was the first world war and the tsar was a really crap military leader so lots of people died and everyone was really unhappy. So then in 1917 there were two revolutions - in February some middle classish people took over and sent the tsar away but then they sort of sucked too because they carried on with the war and couldn't decide on anything, so in October the Bolsheviks (who were more extreme left) came along and kicked them all out and Lenin took over. At some point the tsar and his family all got shot as well, but I can't remember who shot them. So then Lenin et al pulled out of the first world war to fight a really horrible and bloody civil war with everyone who didn't like them, and then they won, mostly by stealing the poor and unhappy people's food and pretending it was for their own good. Then Lenin decided that everyone was too poor and unhappy so he put a bit of capitalism back into the market, and everyone was a bit like 'errrrrrrrr' but then he died, but not before warning everyone that they shouldn't let Stalin lead the party. Stalin tricked everyone and became a leader. Then he spent a couple of decades killing everyone who he didn't like, especially everyone who did all the important jobs like running everything. However, he also made industry good and and improved social mobility and the status of women. Also people were a bit happier even if they were still hungry because they were socialist. Then there was the second world war and lots and lots and lots and lots of people died, and most of St Petersburg starved to death so nobody was happy at all. But they still won, and they got to keep lots of countries. Stalin died and then Khrushchev took over and he was a little bit nicer and told everyone that Stalin was evil but socialism was still good so people were happy and got to tear down Stalin's statues. But there was a cold war and the space race and they built lots of nuclear weapons so that America couldn't kill everyone. Then Khrushchev also died and there were a lot of really **** leaders who let it all get out of hand and then everyone had enough and decided they didn't want the Soviet Union anymore and started knocking things down, like walls in Berlin. And then there was Putin, and now they're capitalist and there are still lots of poor and unhappy people, so it's basically like being at the beginning of the twentieth century again, except everyone can read and they have Levi's now.

I actually hope none of my lecturers ever read that, as they would probably fail me on the spot for huge generalisations :p:

This reminds me of all those children's books you get where everything is hilariously simplified :p:

But ta. At some point I really will learn about some kinda of history...perhaps once I'm done all the new exams I signed up for by choosing this job!

Reply 8477

harr

15

Original post by Slumpy

But ta. At some point I really will learn about some kinda of history...perhaps once I'm done all the new exams I signed up for by choosing this job!

http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~piers/h_of_m_lectures/index.html (Presumably you can't follow the link either though...)

Reply 8478