3 ms·

It is because Diamond treats human civilization like a Age of Empires game. In Age of Empires if you were plonked near the sea (fishing/trade potential), near m

It is because Diamond treats human civilization like a Age of Empires game. In Age of Empires if you were plonked near the sea (fishing/trade potential), near mineral deposits and trees, then all things being equal you'd win mechanically, the geography would be destiny. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_determinism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_determinism Unfortunately for Diamond, Biology and Culture are both real. Humans are not blank slates nor are they mindless automata. The topics of his books are interesting and worth debating over, so I am (unlike Gladwell) pleased he wrote it since lots of interesting commentary and observations have come out. I say you would profit greatly by reading around Diamond rather than by taking him at his word.

dredmorbius 10y ago
While geography isn't quite everything, it does speak for a great deal. Thinking of single-factor determinants (or criticising arguments on that basis) is insipid. And yet somehow we accept it in other fields -- economics and its devolution of everything to simple matters of capital and labour comes to mind. I've found much of Diamond's work to be quite illuminating and useful. I find his critics, most particularly those claimi global fault, cavil and singularly unpersuasive.
- internaut 10y ago
  > Thinking of single-factor determinants (or criticising arguments on that basis) is insipid. And yet somehow we accept it in other fields -- economics and its devolution of everything to simple matters of capital and labour comes to mind. Agreed. The further you get from physics the more multi-factor everything becomes. We know this yet I think our language and minds have difficulty expressing multifactor explanations in ways which seem convincing to most of us. That is a problem. Strangely we are more confident with a single over-arching explanation. I can't explain why that should be so. Surely more analysis should give us more confidence and not less! Intelligence analysts and other smart people put their efforts into building multiple scenarios, which is a good way to see things more multi-dimensionally. I picked up on something from Thiel, which is that he tends to run through multiple explanations e.g. from a liberal and conservative and libertarian and communist point of view before proceeding to make a political point. That's a pretty good mental habit! Whether this gets you to the truth is a separate question I feel but this method will certainly prevent you from overlooking major lines of reasoning, and that in itself is a pretty profound improvement over single factor determinants.

dredmorbius 10y ago

While geography isn't quite everything, it does speak for a great deal. Thinking of single-factor determinants (or criticising arguments on that basis) is insipid. And yet somehow we accept it in other fields -- economics and its devolution of everything to simple matters of capital and labour comes to mind. I've found much of Diamond's work to be quite illuminating and useful. I find his critics, most particularly those claimi global fault, cavil and singularly unpersuasive.

internaut 10y ago
> Thinking of single-factor determinants (or criticising arguments on that basis) is insipid. And yet somehow we accept it in other fields -- economics and its devolution of everything to simple matters of capital and labour comes to mind. Agreed. The further you get from physics the more multi-factor everything becomes. We know this yet I think our language and minds have difficulty expressing multifactor explanations in ways which seem convincing to most of us. That is a problem. Strangely we are more confident with a single over-arching explanation. I can't explain why that should be so. Surely more analysis should give us more confidence and not less! Intelligence analysts and other smart people put their efforts into building multiple scenarios, which is a good way to see things more multi-dimensionally. I picked up on something from Thiel, which is that he tends to run through multiple explanations e.g. from a liberal and conservative and libertarian and communist point of view before proceeding to make a political point. That's a pretty good mental habit! Whether this gets you to the truth is a separate question I feel but this method will certainly prevent you from overlooking major lines of reasoning, and that in itself is a pretty profound improvement over single factor determinants.