I really wish PG would actually talk to some historians. History of Science is an extremely deep field with tons of professionals who have spent their lives studying this material. His overview is shallow. The only history book he cites is from fifty years ago!
It is so frustrating. There is this huge wealth of content available and a large group of people who'd want nothing more to be able to share what they know about the history of science and instead we get think pieces based in hunches, feelings, and generalities. The historians are right there! They want to talk to you!
> I actually worry a lot that as I get "popular" I'll be able to get away with saying stupider stuff than I would have dared say before.
PG started writing essays about what he knows well (programming, start ups), then about things he knows a bit (painting) and then stuff like this, or his essays on economic policy. In any case, he predicted his own future quite well.
You should use this opportunity to recommend an especially high-quality introduction/overview of modern history of science, approachable by a curious outsider.
Diving straight into books can be hard, since academics write for other academics.
But I recommend works by Paula Findlen and Tom Mullaney highly! Mullaney's work pushes back against a whole bunch of myths about the chinese language and its effect on technological innovation. Findlen's work covers both the history of technologies but also the technology of communication and the nature of information in the Renaissance period. Mullaney is weirdly involved on social media so that can be more approachable and Findlen's work is on the readable side for academic history.
The world is so much more complex than "a new idea is created from the ether, people criticize it, and then a paradigm shift happens and it takes over the world".
I see little evidence he would want to talk to them, indeed his way of life is an insult to their discipline and their discipline is a threat to his way of life
Consciousness of history is inoculation against the sort of "thought leadership" PG sells
I personally know an unusual number of historians of science for a software engineer. If PG approached them with an open mind, I'm very confident that they'd love to talk to him. Historians do history because they love their topic so much that they are willing to suffer an abusive career and low pay. They want nothing more than to talk about the things they study.
Being actually-correct about one's historical analogies and still making them work (or even finding that they don't! Gasp!) is harder than repeating "common knowledge" tales or fudging things to fit your narrative while writing with the same bold voice you would if you were actually-correct.
Not to pick just on PG—that's more common than not, really.
It is so frustrating. There is this huge wealth of content available and a large group of people who'd want nothing more to be able to share what they know about the history of science and instead we get think pieces based in hunches, feelings, and generalities. The historians are right there! They want to talk to you!