Mateusz Fafinski

First of all, at least some critics have been asked to comment on those theories and space was given to point out the weak points. But interestingly: no historians. Which is strange, given that all those predictions are supposedly based on historical data. 2/

This could have also helped to avoid obvious factual errors. Like the fact that the Populares were actually a 2nd to 1st century BC phenomenon (a small thing, admittedly) and that their strategies had, in fact, very little to do with Trump's strategies. 3/

Yes, societies are systems, but this does not make them predictable according to a set of rules supposedly derived from data. Yes, elites (and populations) compete for material and symbolic resources, but this competition does not follow neat cycles. 4/

There was never a 'meritocracy' now being upended by 'undermining [of] social norms'. The idea that there ever was a system where 'the most capable' got ahead is another attempt at infantilising the past. That similar process functioned in ancient Rome is, well, preposterous. 5/

It is not 'a more mature version of social science', it's a SNL sketch of it. Some concepts ring true, but then get distorted into oblivion. It's like someone here is playing a game of telephone with history: only distorted slogans remain, with completely wrong explanations. 6/

I know this kind of stuff thrives on controversy and on playing fast and loose with facts and methodologies. This is why what needs to be addressed in the first place is the coverage of such ideas. Ask. Researchers. Of. The. Past. before you publish. 7/

Ancient historians will tell you that Trump is not Tiberius Gracchus; archaeologists that '10 000 years' of 'historical data' is just not true; social historians that the concept of an elite is extremely complex; art historians will explain their representations. And so on. 8/

On a different note, is this not bloody obvious how this is just positioning Trump, Brexiteers and other dangerous populists just where they want to be? The points used to make those claims might be a bit subtler but the result is just playing into their narrative. 9/

And this does not mean that historical data tells us nothing about the present. It tells us *a lot*. But it does not predict the future and it does not follow neat overreaching patterns and it needs a kind of decoding that is completely missing here. 10/

I hope that in the future @guardian will just ask historians, digital humanists and data scientists that work with historical data (and there are plenty of us who do all three) to write on those topics. Reality is better than this fiction, trust me. 11/