It was a good article. A few things I noted.
(1) "...and it’s correlated with an improved enlightenment I think among some people. " - I will convert it to - vague patterns they guess about.

The reason why the topic is close to my interest : few years ago I developed software tool (3D Analytic Framework) for predicting/showing bubbles. Between others features it shows dynamics assets/ markets inter-relations. We can plug in different hypothesis in 3D tool and watch what is going on...

(2)"The problem is that economists want to standardize the understanding of economic events. They want to have a simple model. The problem is it’s hard to standardize our understanding because ideas change and people’s thinking changes through time. That’s what I’ve been interested in of late, trying to understand how people thought in 1837, or 1893, and so on. "

In my opinion: bubbles criteria is a level of interrelations.

(3)“I view this as a convergence of the social sciences. Economists see themselves as trained in economics and are reluctant to get involved in sociology, psychology, anthropology, or history. In fact, at this point in history, the economics profession is not very interested in learning history. If you’re going to be involved with forecasting, you have to use every available perspective to stay in touch with reality.”

Yes: we could add other dimensions to the tool: social variables dynamics, etc