[HN Gopher] Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics ___________________________________________________________________ Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics Author : rufus_foreman Score : 42 points Date : 2023-06-09 20:25 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (blog.daviskedrosky.com) (TXT) w3m dump (blog.daviskedrosky.com) | the__alchemist wrote: | I had a hard time interpreting the various criticisms from | academics of Diamond in a way other than: _This goes against our | field 's dogma, so I will fight it_. Ie, I'm suspicious that, | given the conclusions he came to, they would argue against it | regardless of methods or the strength of his case. Eg, _He | underplays the role of culture? He 's wrong._ | kgwxd wrote: | So like... Diamond is Jared's last name? I can't be the only one | just finding this out today. | | Edit: Oh, this person has nothing to do with a jewelry store that | I mistakenly thought was called Jared Diamonds. I'd like to leave | this here in shame. | WalterBright wrote: | > Diamond also attempts to explain why European, rather than | Chinese, conquerors were the ones who did all the colonizing. | This is a simple balkanization theory--Europe divided into many | areas conducive to states, China formed a great homogenous core-- | that does not need lengthy restatement. Europe has a highly | indented coastline with multiple large peninsulas, all of which | developed independent languages, ethnic groups, and governments, | plus two large islands. | | Roberts' "The Triumph of the West" | | https://www.amazon.com/Phoenix-Triumph-West-Press/dp/1842124... | | has a quite different take on this. He says the difference comes | from a different cultural perspective. It's been a long time | since I read it, but I'll try to summarize it with the Chinese | perspective was that phenomena could not be modeled. Everything | was a unique creation. I.e. the behavior of a model could not be | extrapolated to explain other behaviors, while the European | perspective was always trying to explain things with models. | | Another cultural difference was the European notion (intentional | or otherwise) of free markets. This is expounded upon by another | book, "The Victory of Reason" by Stark | | https://www.amazon.com/Victory-Reason-Christianity-Freedom-C... | | My own observation of history is that the key factor is | recognition of and protection of the rights of life, liberty and | the pursuit of happiness produce massive technological progress | and the uplifting of society. | | Societies that recognize these rights thrive, those that do not, | fall by the wayside as they are unable to compete. | soperj wrote: | > > Diamond also attempts to explain why European, rather than | Chinese, conquerors were the ones who did all the colonizing. | This is a simple balkanization theory--Europe divided into many | areas conducive to states, China formed a great homogenous core | --that does not need lengthy restatement. Europe has a highly | indented coastline with multiple large peninsulas, all of which | developed independent languages, ethnic groups, and | governments, plus two large islands. | | It's like he knows nothing about China. There's lots of | different dialects, Mandarin wasn't the main language used by | Government until around the time that the Americas were being | colonized by the Europeans. | civilized wrote: | Nothing in the quoted passage suggests that China does not | have different dialects. But it doesn't take a history | professor to recognize that China has been under centralized | governments of much more comprehensive reach in space and | time than Europe ever has, and it is with these periods of | unity and stability that Chinese culture most identifies | itself. | contingencies wrote: | This is true _now_. But before, most people would have been | loyal firstly to their area, speak a (quite possibly non- | Chinese or even Sino-Tibetan) language or dialect only | understood in their area, and at would at most have heard | the names of some far-off places. It was not that different | to Europe. And that 's the relatively Chinese areas. Don't | forget also that up until the 20th century large areas of | present-day China were demonstrably _not Chinese_ , in that | nobody could speak or read Chinese in the area and they had | adopted virtually zero Chinese language or culture. | soperj wrote: | > China formed a great homogenous core--that does not need | lengthy restatement. Europe has a highly indented coastline | with multiple large peninsulas, all of which developed | independent languages, ethnic groups, and governments, plus | two large islands. | | This right here more than suggests that China speaks one | language, also suggests that it's never split apart, which | it has multiple multiple times. | swombat wrote: | I read Diamond a long time ago but what he was contrasting | was that the Chinese Empire was centralised and so when they | decided not to expand, that applied to the whole empire, | while the Europeans were fragmented so even if Germany and | France and England didn't want to send any ships, Portugal | and Spain could be convinced to take a risk. | peterfirefly wrote: | Columbus' 3 small ships were also vastly cheaper than Zheng | He's large fleet that had some really large ships in it | (even if we dismiss the reported sizes as utterly | unrealistic). | | There's also the fact that the European ships at the time | were more robust than the Chinese ships -- because robust | ships had been really useful for sailing along the Atlantic | coast for trade/fishing. | soperj wrote: | I also wonder which two islands are considered large out of | GB, Ireland, Iceland, Corsica, Sicily... I feel like | there's a couple of big islands around China too... Taiwan, | some in Japan, Borneo, Philippines for instance. Indigenous | Taiwanese settled the whole south Pacific. | swombat wrote: | The Roberts explanation is subsumed by the Diamond explanation. | | More fragmentation meant more competition. This helped ensure | that states which, like China, might have sub-optimal belief | systems (like "it's not worth trying to explain things") were | outcompeted and conquered by states that did. Similarly, states | with markets that were more free outcompeted those that were | less free, and so the innovation spread. The Dutch invented the | modern stock market and the public company, and ruled the world | for 100 years with that, but soon enough that spread to the UK, | and then rest of the western world, and gave them all a huge | competitive advantage compared to countries that didn't have | that. | | And all that comes from the fragmentation. No need to postulate | cultural differences - the cultural advantages come out of the | fragmentation. | WalterBright wrote: | N & S America civilizations were quite fragmented, as well as | African ones. | pessimizer wrote: | This is too abstract to be an explanation of anything. Chinese | philosophers and logicians, before the arrival of formal logic | in China (or the world probably) made _constant_ references to | the "sage kings" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Sovereig | ns_and_Five_Empe...) to justify every argument, because 2500 | years ago, that's how argumentation worked. Almost _purely_ by | model. | TeMPOraL wrote: | > _He says the difference comes from a different cultural | perspective. It 's been a long time since I read it, but I'll | try to summarize it with the Chinese perspective was that | phenomena could not be modeled. Everything was a unique | creation. I.e. the behavior of a model could not be | extrapolated to explain other behaviors, while the European | perspective was always trying to explain things with models._ | | This makes me believe Diamond over Roberts even more. I don't | think cultural philosophical beliefs matter _that much_. They | can be arbitrary and stick around for long if they don 't make | much of a difference in daily lives - but anything that _does_ | make a difference will get more accurate with time rather | quickly. This is to say, humans aren 't dumb - and because of | that, economics is stronger than faith or custom. | | > _My own observation of history is that the key factor is | recognition of and protection of the rights of life, liberty | and the pursuit of happiness produce massive technological | progress and the uplifting of society._ | | I'm a much less experienced observer, but my current view is | that... it's mostly the other way around. Life, liberty and | pursuit of happiness is the kind of stuff that mostly flows | from people's emotions and social intuitions. People try to | pursue those naturally. How far they go is determined by their | economic situation - Ancient Rome afforded for different levels | of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" than early agrarian | settlements did; different still than what was possible in | Feudal Europe, and different from what was possible after the | Industrial Revolution. | | Technological progress reshapes the economical landscape, | allowing people to achieve more "life, liberty and pursuit of | happiness". Specialization of labor, agriculture optimization, | the printing press, industrialization, engines, washing | machines, electricity - all created conditions that allowed | people having _more_ rights, liberty and happiness than they | could 've before. | j-bos wrote: | I guess this is the historians' orangutan. | thatoneguy wrote: | All those words and not a peep about his board game Darwinopoly. | I played it in college with some members of my anthrpology class | as part of a class exercise and let me tell you, asking random | classmates if they want to have sex and then rolling for | paternity is a thrill that's hard to replicate 20 years later. | [deleted] | aslfjiasf wrote: | This review suggests that the game is now called "Tribes": | https://amzn.com/dp/1556343558, but the author is not Jared | Diamond. Is this the game you remember? | worik wrote: | > But Guns, Germs, and Steel--which is explicitly anti-racist | | Reminds me of: "I'm not racist, but...." | 1letterunixname wrote: | It's frustrating when people take scientific inquiry and | dispassionate plausible explanation of historical circumstances | as some sort of identity politics cudgel to bash a scientist over | the head with erroneous value judgements like they're canceling a | Neonazi. | | GGS was a good book. Independently, 2 MDs at my gym also came up | and mentioned they thought it was a fascinating work. And my dept | chair also thought it was a insightful work. In fairness, the | last 1/3 of it kind of falls flat. Collapse isn't all that | engaging. | George83728 wrote: | I never bought into the claims that Jared Diamond is some sort of | racist; he book is plainly anti-racist and anybody who says | otherwise probably never read it. Honestly. | | That said, some of Jared Diamond's arguments are really lame.. | just poorly thought out. For instance, is claim that the use of | wheels for transportation is in some way gated by the | availability of pack animals. This guy has never used a wheel | barrow I guess... of course he has and mentions them much later | in his book, but dismissing the point as a "puzzling non- | invention". This realization doesn't seem to have him question | his earlier assertion that wheels for transportation would only | be invented where pack animals are available. | | I think it's got nothing to do with pack animals, and the truth | is that wheelbarrows, and wheels for transportation generally, | are one of those inventions that are obvious only in retrospect. | Even after you've invented wheels on toys, it isn't necessarily | immediately obvious that wheels could have practical applications | as well. A very small handful of people in the history of | humanity had this idea and most people never did (and just copied | it from other people). It's not because of geography or ecology, | just shear dumb luck. | seanalltogether wrote: | > For instance, is claim that the use of wheels for | transportation is in some way gated by the availability of pack | animals. This guy has never used a wheel barrow I guess... | | I pulled up a PDF of GG&S to search through and I can't see | this argument in the book. What I can see is him making the | observation that the wheels invented in mesoamerica didn't make | their way north or south to be paired up with pack animals, and | that this showed how hard it was for technological discoveries | to travel vertically through climates. | zen_of_prog wrote: | His arguments definitely don't have the same academic rigor as | someone in their own field, but I felt like they were pretty | defensible. | | Looks like the oldest wheelbarrow that we know if is from ~200 | BCE, the oldest chariots from ~2000 BCE. | | You're right that it often comes down to dumb luck, but I think | those lucky moments are usually facilitated by other factors. | That's why there are often simultaneous and independent | inventions (multiple discovery). Ox-drawn plows are also at | least 4000 years old, and I feel like seeing an animal pulling | a plow all day begs for wheels so you can pull anything | anywhere, much more than the combination of a wheel and a stick | to apply mechanical advantage. | wahnfrieden wrote: | Graeber/Wengrow's Dawn of Everything is a good critical | examination | jrh3 wrote: | Wow. I read that book in college. No idea a backlash like that | developed... That is crazy if that is how skewed university's | have become. Guns, Germs, and Steel is an incredible academic | work. Dang. | [deleted] | angst_ridden wrote: | I think Diamond's greatest fault as a researcher is his | reliance on reductivism. Anyone can cherry-pick history to | support "5 simple rules that explain X" if the rules are even | reasonably sane. | | It may be satisfying and entertaining to read, but human | history is much more complex than just a few rules. | jrh3 wrote: | I took his rules as high level observations of the | environment's impact on human evolution. But human experience | is much more nuanced like you say. I do remember thinking | some of the observations could come across as very blunt. | | There is a video on the internet of him trying to shoot an | old style gun... pretty funny... needless to say it's not his | greatest skill. | | Jared Diamond Funny video: https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkxm- | OUN3XNSdXmZ_fkXs1zZUQziwjaLZN... | [deleted] | civilized wrote: | I bet I can take anyone's favorite history books and paint | them as reductivist. | | The charge of reductivism can be made against anyone who | attempts to explain big patterns in comprehensible ways. | | In fact, isn't it reductionist to claim that a historian's | entire view on a topic can be reduced to theories they | developed in a single book? | FrustratedMonky wrote: | Exactly. Have you seen how many WWII or Civil War books | there are. Do I need to read them all before I am allowed a | valid opinion? All history gets condensed and interpreted. | This thread isn't really do a very good job arguing that | Jared is wrong, it seems much more like they disagree with | some particular point politically, thus he must be wrong. | ren_engineer wrote: | the irony is that I've seen Guns, Germs, and Steel get trashed | by people on the right for downplaying the idea that Western | culture was/is special and the key to success/wealth/innovation | and attacking Diamond for saying it was only due to geography | and other random factors rather than Western culture itself | | Universities and academics have shifted so far left that they | are increasingly eating their own, the entire point of the book | was to try and say that race and Western culture wasn't a | factor. It's a pretty obvious argument against most right wing | talking points, but apparently that isn't enough anymore in | academia | shrimp_emoji wrote: | Yep. It said Europe's balkanized geography (islands, | peninsulas) begat literal balkanization, which begat | competition, which begat innovation, which begat exploration | and technology which dominated the world despite all other | European failings. | | Meanwhile, Asia's geography lent itself to unifying | monopolization, which begat immense totalitarian states which | were more complacent. | | Both geographies fostered dense cities with draft animals, | creating plagues and immunity to those plagues, which let the | Old World dominate the New in numbers, technology, and | immunology (nevermind that they had a few thousand years' | head start in technology since they didn't have to switch | continents). | vanderZwan wrote: | Are you active in any of tho relevant fields? If not, then why | do you think you are better qualified to judge the academic | quality of his work than actual academics with the proper | background? | angst_ridden wrote: | I always found McNeill's "Plagues and Peoples" a much better read | than Diamond's book on semi-overlapping topics. | FrustratedMonky wrote: | Knew there were some detractors, didn't know it was so wide | spread and vindictive. Glad this sets out more current arguments. | yyyk wrote: | The author needs to look at this in a wider context. _GG &S_ may | be defensible, but _Collapse_ is pretty horrible, trying to force | environmental explanations at the cost of downplaying European | slave raids (Easter Islands) or utter absurdity (Diamond 's | suggestion that Viking Greenlanders preferred to starve than to | eat fish). Diamond had a thesis and forced the facts to fit in | the expense of integrity. After _Collapse_ , it made much more | sense to look askance at _GG &S_. | api wrote: | I always get a little suspicious of big nonfiction books | arguing some big thesis that arrive with fawning reviews from | all the right places and whose authors immediately get crowned | as important public intellectuals. | | These books often seem to have a life cycle: sensation, canon, | "but wait a minute," and then lastly forgotten. | | I figure the initial splash might mean the author just knows | the right people in New York. They seem like the nonfiction | equivalent of what someone I know once called a "tobadny" which | stands for "trendy overhyped book about dysfunctional New | Yorkers." These are the occasional literary fiction sensations | about... well... dysfunctional New Yorkers that arrive with | gushing reviews in The New Yorker. | | A merely very talented author outside the New York scene | usually has to wait until they are dead to be noticed. | | In our scene the equivalent would be an overhyped overfunded | startup run by someone who knows the right people in the Valley | that is the hot thing for five minutes. Meanwhile someone in | Nebraska who invented a working Alcubierre Drive will never get | funding. | FrustratedMonky wrote: | This seems more like sour grapes. Is "A Brief History of | Time" in this category? Who's to say. There are a ton of non- | fiction books that are written for popular audiences that do | not make it big. If they are all equal, than all the ones | that don't make it should also end up being wrong. That | doesn't seem right, why is it only the ones that do become | popular must turn out wrong. | | This seems more like moralizing on the public being idiots, | and so if a book is popular it must be wrong. | FrustratedMonky wrote: | It is hard to tell because in the current political climate, | there is such animosity against anybody mentioning human | impacts on the 'environment', that someone could just state | something obvious, like maybe we should stop polluting so much, | and be called a 'woke liberal elitist'. | | So is his book Collapse forcing an environmental theory, or are | you so against any theory of 'human caused environmental | problems', that you can't see past your own bias. It is hard to | tell online. I mean, his book was totally about environmental | problems, so to criticize it for outlining environmental | problems is bit much. | | It has been awhile but think the Vikings had more variables, | like weather that prevented fishing. And, don't think slave | raids negates there were other variables, why can't slave trade | and environment both have contributed. So he didn't highlight | what you wanted to hear about enough, isn't an argument that | slave raids contributed more. | czzr wrote: | I agree his later books were not as good, but this argument is | ridiculous - evaluate GGS on its own terms, those don't change | if the author later writes poorer books. | WalterBright wrote: | > Diamond absolves Europeans of blame for the crimes of | imperialism through his geographical determinism, since the | conquerors couldn't help but seize the helpless Americas. | | Running through the article is the notion that somehow Europeans | were uniquely interested in brutal empire building. I can only | infer that such notions stem from never having read history books | about other cultures. | | For example, "Empire of the Summer Moon", by Gwynne | | https://www.amazon.com/Empire-Summer-Moon-Comanches-Powerful... ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-06-09 23:00 UTC)