28:05 Lena: Okay, so we've covered a lot of ground here, but I want to get practical for a minute. For everyone listening who wants to become a better historical thinker—whether you're trying to understand current events or just be a more informed citizen—what are some concrete things you can do?
28:22 Miles: Great question! I think the first thing is to get comfortable asking "compared to what?" whenever someone makes a historical claim. Like, if someone says "This is the most divided we've ever been," your immediate response should be "compared to what? The Civil War? The 1960s? The 1890s?"
28:40 Lena: So it's about developing that instinct to look for context and comparison?
8:22 Miles: Exactly. And related to that—always ask about time scale. Are we talking about changes over decades, years, or months? Because the same trend can look completely different depending on your time horizon.
28:57 Lena: Give me an example of what you mean.
28:59 Miles: Okay, so if you look at American politics over the last four years, it looks incredibly chaotic and unprecedented. But if you zoom out to look at the last forty years, you see a longer pattern of increasing polarization and institutional breakdown. And if you zoom out to two hundred years, you see that American democracy has always been messier and more contentious than we like to remember.
29:23 Lena: So the time scale you choose completely shapes the story you tell?
29:27 Miles: Right, and that's not necessarily manipulation—different time scales reveal different truths. But you need to be conscious of which lens you're using and why.
29:36 Lena: What else should people be watching for?
29:38 Miles: I think it's really important to distinguish between correlation and causation when people make historical arguments. Just because two things happened around the same time doesn't mean one caused the other.
29:49 Lena: Like how people sometimes blame social problems on whatever new technology or cultural trend they don't like?
26:59 Miles: Perfect example! "Kids today are more anxious because of social media"—well, maybe, but anxiety rates were already rising before smartphones became ubiquitous. And there are probably multiple factors at play. History is almost never monocausal.
30:04 Lena: So we should be suspicious of simple explanations for complex phenomena?
30:10 Miles: Yeah, and also suspicious of anyone who claims that history "proves" their political position. History is complicated and contradictory. You can usually find evidence for multiple interpretations of the same events.
30:23 Lena: What about sources? How do you evaluate historical information, especially when there's so much misinformation floating around?
30:31 Miles: That's huge. I always tell people to follow the footnotes—where is this information coming from? Is it primary sources, secondary analysis, or just someone's opinion? And are multiple credible sources telling similar stories, or is this just one person's interpretation?
30:47 Lena: And I imagine you want to be especially careful about sources that confirm what you already believe?
30:53 Miles: Absolutely! Confirmation bias is probably the biggest obstacle to good historical thinking. We all want to believe that history validates our worldview, but the most valuable historical insights often come from sources that challenge your assumptions.
31:08 Lena: What about the role of emotion in all this? Because historical events can be really emotionally charged, especially recent ones.
31:16 Miles: That's such an important point. Emotion isn't the enemy of good historical thinking—it can actually help you understand why people made certain choices. But you have to be aware of how your own emotions are shaping your interpretation.
31:30 Lena: How do you do that in practice?
31:32 Miles: I try to notice when I'm having a strong emotional reaction to a historical claim and ask myself why. Like, if reading about a particular policy makes me angry, is that because the policy was objectively harmful, or because it conflicts with my current political beliefs?
31:48 Lena: And sometimes the answer might be both, right?
2:19 Miles: Exactly! The goal isn't to become emotionally detached—that's impossible and probably not even desirable. The goal is to become more self-aware about how your emotions are influencing your analysis.
32:04 Lena: What about dealing with uncertainty? Because one thing that's come up repeatedly in our conversation is how much we don't and can't know about both past and future.
32:14 Miles: I think that's actually the most important skill of all—getting comfortable with saying "I don't know" or "It's complicated" or "There are multiple ways to interpret this." In our culture, that feels like weakness, but it's actually intellectual honesty.
32:30 Lena: And it opens up space for genuine learning and conversation, rather than just point-scoring?
0:44 Miles: Right! Because once you admit that you might be wrong, or that the situation is more complex than you initially thought, you can actually engage with other perspectives and new evidence.
32:47 Lena: This all sounds great in theory, but it's also really challenging to put into practice, especially when you're trying to make sense of fast-moving current events.
32:57 Miles: It is challenging, and I don't think anyone does it perfectly. But I think even small improvements in how we consume and discuss history can make a big difference in the quality of our public discourse.