5 ms·

Amazing work from Bret as usual, but very sad that this kind of popular/actually useful history is completely unrewarded in academia. This is far more valuable

Amazing work from Bret as usual, but very sad that this kind of popular/actually useful history is completely unrewarded in academia. This is far more valuable than whatever top university press book most historians write.

wjnc 4y ago
It’s entertainment. Academia shouldn’t be entertainment, at least that is my opinion. I’ve seen more than a few erstwhile respected professors turn into talking heads without much substance by sudden media fame. One of the better stories was the one that started bringing in his own newspaper clippings to the universities media department in order to rank higher on the yearly media ranking. After that he rented an apartment near Harvard and bought Harvard professors lunch to publish the photos. I think Bret rightfully treats it as a secondary career and that his patrons are very right to support him.
- trebbble 4y ago
  > It’s entertainment. Complete disagreement here. Informative writing may serve as entertainment, but if it's done well, that's not all it is. It helps people understand the world, which can provide all kinds of benefits beyond keeping them from being bored for a few minutes. In fact, this type of work is precisely how people learn almost everything, right up to grad school, which means it's the way the overwhelming majority of education is conducted. Most people going through that aren't doing it for entertainment. Hell, Spivak's Calculus is more on this level—presenting findings to non-experts—than it is an academic endeavor, and no one dismisses that as just being entertainment. It may not be valuable to people who are already experts in a field, so may not be properly "academic", but this categorization of acoup (and anything like this work) as simply entertainment is going way too far.
- jcranmer 4y ago
  Bret actually has an entire thread on this in Twitter (https://twitter.com/BretDevereaux/status/1513255197597966341 https://twitter.com/BretDevereaux/status/1513255197597966341), responding to someone calling him "the orc logistics guy". The tl;dr is basically that part of an academic's job is to educate not just the professionals but also the lay public. By using fantasy and other pop culture works, he's introducing pretty important military history and theory concepts to those who wouldn't otherwise attempt to wade into it--and if they enjoy it, they might come back for some more pressing and serious can't-sugarcoat-this topics such as the implications of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. In general, I would say that academics all too commonly forget the need to engage with people outside of their narrow disciplines, and in doing so, you can cede the field to engaging writers who are way out of their depths and horribly wrong about what they are writing (e.g., Jared Diamond).
  - _delirium 4y ago
    > In general, I would say that academics all too commonly forget the need to engage with people outside of their narrow disciplines, and in doing so, you can cede the field to engaging writers who are way out of their depths and horribly wrong about what they are writing (e.g., Jared Diamond). Maybe I'm misunderstanding the Diamond example here, but I think of him as precisely a cautionary tale for academics, of what can go wrong when they try to go too far in the pop-science, big-picture, broad-audience direction. Diamond is solidly an academic, not some kind of outsider... he's held a professorship at UCLA for 50+ years. But later in his career decided he wanted to write "big history" interdisciplinary synthesis for a popular audience. I suppose one could try to write for a popular audience without going that far outside your own discipline/expertise though.
    - horsawlarway 4y ago
      I believe you've misunderstood the parent comment. Also - generally speaking, I think being able to speak (or write) in a manner that's compelling for audiences across broad backgrounds, rather than just their niche community is a skillset to be admired. Science does nothing if people do not believe in it, or do not engage with it. I definitely agree that this does not give academics license to veer entirely outside of their expertise and use their credentials in the field to hide this (eg: Diamond). But I think not trying at all is worse. Far worse.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      Diamond is pretty well regarded even in among academic historians. I strongly suspect believe that /r/anthropology is responsible for this perspective that Diamond is poorly regarded among historians. Almost any serious historian agrees with his thesis: larger arable land coupled with crops and animals more suitable for domestication led to greater population levels and social development in Eurasia than in the Americas, which is the main reason why the Columbian exchange was so one-sided. Diamonds ideas laid the foundations of many serious and well regarded historians, like Ian Morris. I'm also seriously baffled by people who try to portray his views as racist of eurocentric. His preface explicitly spells out that Europe was a backwater until the early modern period. In fact, a large part of the motivation behind Guns, Germs, and steel was to debunk the idea of wester cultural or racial superiority, and provide a compelling counter narrative to those explanations of Eurasian-American divergence.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  I'd say it's education. Academia ostensibly has a dual focus, on both research and education. But the really is usually different from that messaging.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  This is much more than entertainment. These posts have citations and the same academic rigor as a typical academic publication. They're just packaged in a more approachable and accessible format. However, these posts are not doing original research which does distinguish them from the main activity of academics. They're essentially brief survey papers (works that summarize the existing publications on a given topic). This is not a knock against ACoUP. These posts are excellent and I enjoy them immensely. They're just not setting out to accomplish the objectives that most academics are trying to achieve.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  Academia has a serious problem with snobbery. Few other workplaces in the world have denser concentrations of people who think really highly of themselves, even though they wouldn't admit it openly and their preferred way of war is tons and tons of plausibly deniable passive aggression. This snobbery problem opens a bigger chasm between the academics and the general public that would otherwise be necessary, and the political consequences down the line might be serious; if academics are perceived as out of touch, aloof and intentionally incomprehensible, the backlash won't be just anti-snobbish, but anti-intellectual, with possible dire consequences for the viability and vibrancy of Western civilization. But the fact that popularizers like Bret Devereaux reap so much open disdain indicates that few activities are as unpopular among the gatekeepeers as building bridges across said chasm. A True Intellectual Must Be Dour At All Costs.
icegreentea2 4y ago
I think as categories, popular education material and more scholarly work are equally important (just look at Bret's citations...). I think it is fair to say that the marginal value of one extra ACOUP sized blogpost of high quality popular education material is probably higher than one extra book, but that comes down to the relatively lack of high quality popular education material.
watwut 4y ago
Bret is relying on books you consider not valuable and also has own research of that sorts.

wjnc 4y ago

It’s entertainment. Academia shouldn’t be entertainment, at least that is my opinion. I’ve seen more than a few erstwhile respected professors turn into talking heads without much substance by sudden media fame. One of the better stories was the one that started bringing in his own newspaper clippings to the universities media department in order to rank higher on the yearly media ranking. After that he rented an apartment near Harvard and bought Harvard professors lunch to publish the photos. I think Bret rightfully treats it as a secondary career and that his patrons are very right to support him.

trebbble 4y ago
> It’s entertainment. Complete disagreement here. Informative writing may serve as entertainment, but if it's done well, that's not all it is. It helps people understand the world, which can provide all kinds of benefits beyond keeping them from being bored for a few minutes. In fact, this type of work is precisely how people learn almost everything, right up to grad school, which means it's the way the overwhelming majority of education is conducted. Most people going through that aren't doing it for entertainment. Hell, Spivak's Calculus is more on this level—presenting findings to non-experts—than it is an academic endeavor, and no one dismisses that as just being entertainment. It may not be valuable to people who are already experts in a field, so may not be properly "academic", but this categorization of acoup (and anything like this work) as simply entertainment is going way too far.
jcranmer 4y ago
Bret actually has an entire thread on this in Twitter (https://twitter.com/BretDevereaux/status/1513255197597966341 https://twitter.com/BretDevereaux/status/1513255197597966341), responding to someone calling him "the orc logistics guy". The tl;dr is basically that part of an academic's job is to educate not just the professionals but also the lay public. By using fantasy and other pop culture works, he's introducing pretty important military history and theory concepts to those who wouldn't otherwise attempt to wade into it--and if they enjoy it, they might come back for some more pressing and serious can't-sugarcoat-this topics such as the implications of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. In general, I would say that academics all too commonly forget the need to engage with people outside of their narrow disciplines, and in doing so, you can cede the field to engaging writers who are way out of their depths and horribly wrong about what they are writing (e.g., Jared Diamond).
- _delirium 4y ago
  > In general, I would say that academics all too commonly forget the need to engage with people outside of their narrow disciplines, and in doing so, you can cede the field to engaging writers who are way out of their depths and horribly wrong about what they are writing (e.g., Jared Diamond). Maybe I'm misunderstanding the Diamond example here, but I think of him as precisely a cautionary tale for academics, of what can go wrong when they try to go too far in the pop-science, big-picture, broad-audience direction. Diamond is solidly an academic, not some kind of outsider... he's held a professorship at UCLA for 50+ years. But later in his career decided he wanted to write "big history" interdisciplinary synthesis for a popular audience. I suppose one could try to write for a popular audience without going that far outside your own discipline/expertise though.
  - horsawlarway 4y ago
    I believe you've misunderstood the parent comment. Also - generally speaking, I think being able to speak (or write) in a manner that's compelling for audiences across broad backgrounds, rather than just their niche community is a skillset to be admired. Science does nothing if people do not believe in it, or do not engage with it. I definitely agree that this does not give academics license to veer entirely outside of their expertise and use their credentials in the field to hide this (eg: Diamond). But I think not trying at all is worse. Far worse.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    Diamond is pretty well regarded even in among academic historians. I strongly suspect believe that /r/anthropology is responsible for this perspective that Diamond is poorly regarded among historians. Almost any serious historian agrees with his thesis: larger arable land coupled with crops and animals more suitable for domestication led to greater population levels and social development in Eurasia than in the Americas, which is the main reason why the Columbian exchange was so one-sided. Diamonds ideas laid the foundations of many serious and well regarded historians, like Ian Morris. I'm also seriously baffled by people who try to portray his views as racist of eurocentric. His preface explicitly spells out that Europe was a backwater until the early modern period. In fact, a large part of the motivation behind Guns, Germs, and steel was to debunk the idea of wester cultural or racial superiority, and provide a compelling counter narrative to those explanations of Eurasian-American divergence.
marcosdumay 4y ago
I'd say it's education. Academia ostensibly has a dual focus, on both research and education. But the really is usually different from that messaging.
Manuel_D 4y ago
This is much more than entertainment. These posts have citations and the same academic rigor as a typical academic publication. They're just packaged in a more approachable and accessible format. However, these posts are not doing original research which does distinguish them from the main activity of academics. They're essentially brief survey papers (works that summarize the existing publications on a given topic). This is not a knock against ACoUP. These posts are excellent and I enjoy them immensely. They're just not setting out to accomplish the objectives that most academics are trying to achieve.
inglor_cz 4y ago
Academia has a serious problem with snobbery. Few other workplaces in the world have denser concentrations of people who think really highly of themselves, even though they wouldn't admit it openly and their preferred way of war is tons and tons of plausibly deniable passive aggression. This snobbery problem opens a bigger chasm between the academics and the general public that would otherwise be necessary, and the political consequences down the line might be serious; if academics are perceived as out of touch, aloof and intentionally incomprehensible, the backlash won't be just anti-snobbish, but anti-intellectual, with possible dire consequences for the viability and vibrancy of Western civilization. But the fact that popularizers like Bret Devereaux reap so much open disdain indicates that few activities are as unpopular among the gatekeepeers as building bridges across said chasm. A True Intellectual Must Be Dour At All Costs.

icegreentea2 4y ago

I think as categories, popular education material and more scholarly work are equally important (just look at Bret's citations...). I think it is fair to say that the marginal value of one extra ACOUP sized blogpost of high quality popular education material is probably higher than one extra book, but that comes down to the relatively lack of high quality popular education material.

watwut 4y ago

Bret is relying on books you consider not valuable and also has own research of that sorts.