Any criticism for my History Hypothesis?

[S]

Got bored and came up with a hypothesis on how to categorize history. It even has a catchy acronym!

It is MINT:

Mob.
Individual
Nature
Time

The idea for mob is people’s mob mentality. Not just limited to riots, but specifically to herd behavior such as Economic panic or social behavior. Examples being, 2007 US Housing Market Crash, racism in the United States, and so on and so forth. The idea for Individual is a person who “changes the course of history”. Examples of innovation, Nikola Tesla’s Alternating current, or social change, such as Martin Luther King Jr.’s I have a dream speech and governmental such as Nehru’s policy of Scientific Socialism. Nature is pretty self-explanatory. Natural disasters, competition for resources, etcetera etcetera. The idea for Time is sort of abstract, specifically the passage of it, as an influence on all three factors. The idea that History is a march of progress over time and the idea that as generations “cycle” history changes as well.

Any constructive criticism?

[Yun]

What does it really mean, though?
When you say "categorize history," what are you talking about? Are you saying that every event in history can be put into one of these categories? Are you looking at the categories of influence?
Honestly, the ideas may be good, but the underlying premise isn't clear.

[Athena]

Off base on so many points it is hard to categorize them.

For example, you ignore the element of "right place at the right time."
Take Tesla. He championed AC but did not have the backing or infrastructure to do anything with it.
Edison, on the other hand, had all the backing and infrastructure he needed, but championed DC current.
Edison came around and is a lynch pin in history. Tesla is footnote.

You also sling racism around as the mud patch in your leaking dam. IF you are going to use it as one of your driving forces, what exactly do you mean? How do you measure it? Why s "racism" stronger in bad economic times than in good ones? What does this say about the true nature of what you want to call racism? Is it a racial issue or a personal one? If "ALL politics is local" then is ALL politics personal? Why do you easily tolerate some racism while denouncing others?

Your final conclusion makes for good television "March of Time" but you hedge your bet too much to make it useful. "History is a march forward BUT it is also cyclical. That way I can explain all the things that don't fit my model." Pliable, but hardly academic.

You have the ideas, but you need to hammer them out a bit more. take a step back from the "talking 'bout my generation" mentality. That is what a true historian needs to do.

[RAZORSHARP]

Pretty good overall

[sgatlantisrose]

You list four aspects of history. But that is not a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an idea to explain certain phenomena or events. A hypothesis becomes a theory when you offer supporting evidence. A theory will continue to be tested over time, but when enough evidence is accumulated, the theory is accepted as fact.
You don't need a hypothesis to categorize history. You would need to take a further step, and make some claim about how your categories are able to help us deduce something about history. You have a good idea, but it's not a hypothesis. You should take one more step. Can you find any events in history that don't fit into one of your categories?

[ammianus]

None of this is original

Mob - called 'History from below' by academic historians

Individual - called 'History from above' by academic historians

Nature and Time - called 'Cause and effect' by academic historians.

So,all been worked out before.