Asimov’s Mathematical Psychohistory Is Pure Fantasy

Richard Varela’s contribution is disappointing because he seems to have little or no idea of what psychohistory is about. I have done psychohistorical work for 25 years and can assert without hesitation that his claim that “any researcher of psychohistory knows that much of the literature is replete with the same concepts and theories offered by Dr. Asimov” is just not true. Though Asimov did indeed invent the term “psychohistory,” his ideas in no way reflect what our field is about or reflect our current state of awareness and knowledge. What Asimov presents might more properly be called “mathematical history,” but it is not the psychohistory we work with today and never has been. We are not practitioners of a “branch of mathematics which deals with the reactions of human conglomerates to fixed social and economic stimuli.” Humans do much more than react. “Social and economic stimuli” does not begin to describe the complexity of what large groups are about. And when, in the reality of human affairs, is anything ever “fixed”? Our field is not a “profound statistical science.” Nor do we attempt “mathematical prediction.” Can humans really be understood mathematically? I think not.