If I ever read a book about the Navajo I promise to write a summary about it.
On the whole I feel slightly embarrassed writing this type of book summary article. It is not much original work. Especially with a subject like this. As a European I know comparatively little about native Americans and find the subject interesting. But I do suspect that American readers (which are the majority at Wood From Eden) find it a bit banal.
I think Anders really did us a favor here, because Pekka Hämäläinen's book is both long (about 500 pages) and, in my opinion, a bit difficult to read. I tried to read it, but gave it up because of repeated remarks about how prejudiced it is to assume that it was self-evident that the European colonists would win the struggle over America. I believe it actually is self-evident that the more technically and social complex society will eventually win, if it ever decides to spend enough resources. But until those more complex societies get interested and unified enough, being small and mobile is a great military strategy that can allow technologically and rather socially primitive societies to dominate more complex societies.
> I believe it actually is self-evident that the more technically and social complex society will eventually win, if it ever decides to spend enough resources.
Anyone who thinks otherwise has never played a 4X game. From Civilization to Masters of Orion, who controls technology controls the board.
That sounds very plausible. I never played such games (or any computer game really) but my children play Civilization or something similar and even Anders occasionally does when he can excuse it as baby-entertainment. Thinking about it, our different experiences of such games might lie behind our different evaluations of Peter Turchin: I think Turchin is brilliant. He makes me see things more clearly. Anders thinks Turchin just says things that are either self-evident or cherry-picked in a wrong way. The difference could be that Anders already sees those things clearly from having played Civilization and such games since his teenage years, while I have to read about the same mechanisms in books.
Wow, I was preparing an explanation for why taking lessons from computer games is actually *somewhat* meaningful even though they're just games, but you were all set to accept that, so OK!
Two different things! Game theory deals with rational agents coordinating in different arenas, while games may try to simulate reality, or may just be Monopoly. I've taught game theory before, I'd rather lick raw chicken drippings off the asphalt than play Monopoly.
Yeah, me too. It probably makes me a bad parent but I can't stand board games (and know nothing about computer games). Still, I believe a lot in the potential of games. When we were young and curious, Anders and I talked about how to construct an economy game in order to simulate how such a thing as unemployment could exist. I imagined that with an advanced enough board game, it would be possible to see where capital was accumulated and why people who craved wide-screen TVs just couldn't be employed making wide-screen TVs. (Then I got wiser and older and realized it is because all people just aren't competent enough to be useful in the production of wide screen TVs. That is, that people aren't identical game pieces after all. No one told me that in economics class).
I had not heard about this book (although I hear of very few books since I consume comparatively little media). I do note that it is published in 2010 while Hämäläinen's book is from 2008. Maybe Gwynne has made a readable book about Hämäläinen's work which is, to be fair, very scholarly.
Very Interesting.
I wonder if you could make article on Navajos, who managed to grow at same time by relying on sheep.
If I ever read a book about the Navajo I promise to write a summary about it.
On the whole I feel slightly embarrassed writing this type of book summary article. It is not much original work. Especially with a subject like this. As a European I know comparatively little about native Americans and find the subject interesting. But I do suspect that American readers (which are the majority at Wood From Eden) find it a bit banal.
As a European reader, who knew almost nothing about the Comanche, I really appreciated this summary
I think Anders really did us a favor here, because Pekka Hämäläinen's book is both long (about 500 pages) and, in my opinion, a bit difficult to read. I tried to read it, but gave it up because of repeated remarks about how prejudiced it is to assume that it was self-evident that the European colonists would win the struggle over America. I believe it actually is self-evident that the more technically and social complex society will eventually win, if it ever decides to spend enough resources. But until those more complex societies get interested and unified enough, being small and mobile is a great military strategy that can allow technologically and rather socially primitive societies to dominate more complex societies.
> I believe it actually is self-evident that the more technically and social complex society will eventually win, if it ever decides to spend enough resources.
Anyone who thinks otherwise has never played a 4X game. From Civilization to Masters of Orion, who controls technology controls the board.
That sounds very plausible. I never played such games (or any computer game really) but my children play Civilization or something similar and even Anders occasionally does when he can excuse it as baby-entertainment. Thinking about it, our different experiences of such games might lie behind our different evaluations of Peter Turchin: I think Turchin is brilliant. He makes me see things more clearly. Anders thinks Turchin just says things that are either self-evident or cherry-picked in a wrong way. The difference could be that Anders already sees those things clearly from having played Civilization and such games since his teenage years, while I have to read about the same mechanisms in books.
Wow, I was preparing an explanation for why taking lessons from computer games is actually *somewhat* meaningful even though they're just games, but you were all set to accept that, so OK!
Well, I guess it would feel awkward to be for game theory and against games.
Two different things! Game theory deals with rational agents coordinating in different arenas, while games may try to simulate reality, or may just be Monopoly. I've taught game theory before, I'd rather lick raw chicken drippings off the asphalt than play Monopoly.
Yeah, me too. It probably makes me a bad parent but I can't stand board games (and know nothing about computer games). Still, I believe a lot in the potential of games. When we were young and curious, Anders and I talked about how to construct an economy game in order to simulate how such a thing as unemployment could exist. I imagined that with an advanced enough board game, it would be possible to see where capital was accumulated and why people who craved wide-screen TVs just couldn't be employed making wide-screen TVs. (Then I got wiser and older and realized it is because all people just aren't competent enough to be useful in the production of wide screen TVs. That is, that people aren't identical game pieces after all. No one told me that in economics class).
I liked Empire of the Summer Moon by Gwynne an easy read.
Yep great book. Comanches were brutal and primitive, even though skilled survivalist
Could be something for me! Great blog, by the way. Since books are better than blogs, a blog about books is a great concept.
Thank you. I started it with something else in mind and end up just writing about what I'm reading. I enjoy your substack very much.
I had not heard about this book (although I hear of very few books since I consume comparatively little media). I do note that it is published in 2010 while Hämäläinen's book is from 2008. Maybe Gwynne has made a readable book about Hämäläinen's work which is, to be fair, very scholarly.
excellent post