—“It sounds to me like reduction-ism.”— (a friend)

Well that’s not a criticism, since the entire universe operates on a (scarily) small set extremely simple rules (forces) that produce all of existence. All human behavior, likewise, is quite simple. It’s the vast set of justifications and deceits that we use to preserve our negotiating position that are complicated.

I mean, there are what? 1000-1500 ideas in toto? There are how many narrative structures? twelve to thirty? There are how many group evolutionary strategies? Maybe six?

In technology we call them ‘design patterns’ or ‘patterns’, but in science we call them physics, chemistry, biology, sentience.

So in my narrative, which is the causal narrative all scientists seek, It’s called historicization – the science of history. And while in the past we used justificationary (reported) history (what people write) we have instead transformed to analysis by incentives (demonstrated actions) using economics, political economy (institutions), justificationary mythos (what people write), and Comparative civilizations (group evolutionary strategies).

But there is a long lag – because the justificationism cannot imagine that all authors ever do is create moral license to pursue an opportunity that already exists.