5 ms·
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
by jrh3 3y ago
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.
- angst_ridden 3y agoI 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.
- civilized 3y agoI 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 3y agoExactly. 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.
- George83728 3y agoIt's easy to level a charge of reductionist when the book is presenting a model for why things happened a certain way, instead of just describing what sort of things happened. GG&S is all about the why, and is therefore inherently reductionist.
- jrh3 3y agoI 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- https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkxm-OUN3XNSdXmZ_fkXs1zZUQziwjaLZN...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- George83728 3y agoNo ear protection... most people not yet accustomed to guns would probably react about the same way.
- incogitor 3y agoI keep seeing this robot-like criticism of Diamond as "over-simplistic" or "hyperreductionist". But it's just a model? The map is not the territory, and Diamond has never claimed to explain all human development. His thesis is merely that geography and environment contribute to biological and cultural dominance to a disproportionate degree compared to other factors. I don't see how this is controversial.
- LorenPechtel 3y agoI think it is because he's showing the colonial powers weren't especially evil, just more successful at being evil.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ren_engineer 3y agothe 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 3y agoYep. 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).
- LorenPechtel 3y agoAnd note that totalitarian states tend to become anti-science because it might upset their applecart. China was the dominant power, it didn't need innovation so why take the risk?
- WalterBright 3y agoFree markets are a big deal. They are indeed the key to success/wealth/innovation.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- 3y ago
- vanderZwan 3y agoAre 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?
- AlbertCory 3y ago> better qualified to judge the academic quality of his work than actual academics with the proper background that argument only holds up if the group with the "proper background" is NOT a giant echo chamber where non-conformity is ruthlessly punished.
- vanderZwan 3y agoCan you specify which fields you have in mind and why you think so, or are you speaking in hypotheticals just for the sake of appearing to make a counterpoint?
- AlbertCory 3y agoI guess you think this is a witty thing to say. we're already talking about a specific field.
- vanderZwan 3y agoNo, I think you're trying to dismiss critics of Diamond without ever engaging with the actual criticism by blanket-accusing them of living in "an echo chamber" (and missing the irony of doing so on HN), without providing a shred of evidence. It's a wonderful mental trick to convince yourself you're right without fact-checking yourself, not to mention dismiss any field of expertise that you disagree with, but it doesn't actually prove anything.
- AlbertCory 3y agoWell, I think you're trying to dismiss defenders of Diamond by saying "those people aren't published 'experts' in the field." Which is, as you said, "a wonderful mental trick to convince yourself you're right without fact-checking yourself." They're not in our club, so they don't count.
- kzrdude 3y agoIt's a very inspiring and interesting book. And it causes a lot of discussion, that alone was(?) usually enough to get a lot of recommendations for reading. Academically, we must of course read it before we can criticise it.