My answer: Yes, in order to interpret history, disincentives are the most rigorous guide. How?: Due to the many assumptions of inductive logic, deductive logic is more rigorous. Throughout history, incentives are less rigorous because no entity(besides God) is completely rational and or self-interested, thus what incentivizes an act is less rigorous then what disincentivizes the same action. And, as a heuristic, all entities(besides God) have a finite existence before their energy(eternal consciousness) goes to the afterlife( paraphrased from these sources : 1)Book Highly Theoretical Differential Equations of the Afterlife
2)Code My Current Thoughts on the Afterlife
), thus interpretation through disincentives is more rigorous than interpreting through incentives.
Disincentives are not the most rigorous guide, but a factor that helps to interpret history. Historians must evaluate various sources of history before making logical conclusions. They should also use their knowledge to judge the nature of sources and how they should be used.
People's behavior in history is based on different motives, ideologies and personal views. Although motivational factors may influence decision making, individuals and groups often act within the context of their own authority and time.
Facts are manipulated to suit narratives. Greed is the factor for colonialism