Asimov’s Scientific Predictions

Since my grade school days I have been intrigued by some of the concepts in Isaac Asimov’s fiction, such as robotics and psychohistory. Asimov was actually more of a scientist than a science fiction writer. As a result, many of his ideas have proven to be realistic and have actually come to exist. These include “automated” showers, hand held calculators and the miniaturization of electronics in general, solar-powered satellites, the ability to choose the sex of babies with certainty, cyber cafes (where one can rent online computer time for communicating by e-mail and browsing the Internet, with light refreshments usually available), and the term “robotics.”

Over the years, I developed a curiosity regarding the real potential of explaining short- and long-term actions of large groups of individuals while considering the question of just what was Isaac Asimov’s concept of a science of psychohistory. At one point, Asimov wrote that the only difference between explaining or predicting the actions of atoms and the actions of humans is that there are billions more atoms involved in a given event than there are humans in a given event. Therefore, the statistical uncertainty introduced as a result of extraneous variables is greater when dealing with humans than when dealing with atoms. This sounds suspiciously like scientism which, I assume, most psychologists and sociologists dismiss.

I am not a psychologist by trade. In fact, I am educated in electrical engineering and am an entrepreneur. My perspective and my contribution to any discussion of psychohistory is as a layman. Probably everyone who has read Asimov’s books has wondered if his methods have been or could ever be used in real life to predict the future. But I believe that among Asimov fans there is virtually no understanding of what his psychohistory was really meant to be. They confuse Asimovian

Page 23

psychohistory itself with the Seldon plan, the 1000 years of prediction, which was a specific and detailed application of that psychohistory. Although a purpose and function of Asimov’s psychohistory was prediction, its essence was to give a precise explanation of past and current human activity. Only then was Asimov’s psychohistory able to predict future actions — and then only generally and over long periods of time. There is even less understanding that he was able to apply psychohistory to a controlled and manipulated future only with the use of the purely fictional mentallics — unless you believe in psychics.

I believe that Asimov’s variation of psychohistory is completely unrealistic and impossible in the current period of human history. The need for extremely large numbers of humans to be involved is the most obvious problem with attempting to apply Asimovian psychohistory to real life. There is currently no model available on which to test psychohistorical theories or even to chart trends. Other ideological and pragmatic obstacles include the lack of superior understanding of group motivations; the significant technological advancement we are experiencing which produces a still-developing and, therefore, unstable society; and the absence of a mature truly global community — not just the presence of the beginnings of a global economy.

I am also convinced that any attempt to link Asimovian psychohistory and real psychohistory for prediction is futile. But my earlier examination of the potential of Isaac Asimov’s psychohistory led to my continuing interest in explanation of group psychology, which is at least a part of the scope of the psychohistory that professional psychohistorians have developed. Because I developed an interest in psychohistory from the background of a scientist’s frame of mind, and was introduced to a fictional version of psychohistory that used strictly scientific methodologies, I have had to sort through the multi-definition nature and the varied ideologies behind current psychohistorical study to gain even a partial understanding of what it is all about. I suspected and then was informed on the e-mail Psychohistory List, first indirectly by Henry Lawton, then directly by Paul Elovitz, that psychohistory is not necessarily a science, but can also be described as a subjective art that utilizes intuition as well as science. My view at this point, influenced by Asimov, is that the multidisciplinary nature of psychohistory could use a little more of the discipline of science.

Page 24