4 ms·

Seems like they are splitting the difference a little. It has 'some' impact, but not 'as great as supposed by Diamond'? It was a big theme of the Diamond book

Seems like they are splitting the difference a little. It has 'some' impact, but not 'as great as supposed by Diamond'? It was a big theme of the Diamond book, but don't think he said it was 'Everything'. I remember it being more of a proposed theory, and he does focus on Geography a lot. But maybe I'm splitting hairs, since it was such a big theme of his book, it might be the only thing people remember.

AlotOfReading 3y ago
You're missing a lot of context surrounding the book. Academics have always acknowledged that geography impacts societies to some degree. There would have been no point in writing GG&S if that was the only argument. Diamond's actual argument is that it's a major, possibly primary factor. He then went on a speaking tour where he told anyone who was dismissive of his grand narrative that they should stop waffling about how complex the factors influence societies are and make their own grand narrative instead.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  Yeah. Lot of comments here are really debating what the word "Some" means. Geography has "Some" impact to "Some" degree. At what point does "Some" become a "Major" influence. It was a major theme of the book, so if this current study indicates it was not 'major', only 'some'. Guess that is still valuable re-quantification. Think all the methods used in the study are pretty valuable. Whether we agree or not with Diamond, I think this current study is good to quantify it.
hwillis 3y ago
> Our analyses uncovered significant variation within continents in the magnitude of ecological barriers to cultural transmission, a finding that is consistent with the critique that Diamond's axis of orientation hypothesis is potentially reductionist and overreaching. More importantly, our results indicate that areas within Eurasia do not consistently rank lower than those in other continents across any cost type [...] at none of the time points considered did Eurasia have any clear ecological advantages over other regions. Thus, we find no support for Diamond's claims during the timeframe in which most societies around the world transitioned into an agriculturalist mode of subsistence. Pretty unambiguous
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  Guess I only read the summary, where they are more guarded. ""Environmental heterogeneity along Eurasia's major corridors of cultural transmission was not significantly lower than observed in other continents. One of the authors, Russell Gray from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, summarizes the results by saying, "Our findings point out that geography, like genetics and ecology, matters, but it is not destiny." Senior author of the study, Carlos Botero from the University of Texas at Austin, concludes with a word of caution, "We do not claim, by any means, to have a definitive answer on whether the wheels of history turned at different speeds in different parts of the world.""

AlotOfReading 3y ago

You're missing a lot of context surrounding the book. Academics have always acknowledged that geography impacts societies to some degree. There would have been no point in writing GG&S if that was the only argument. Diamond's actual argument is that it's a major, possibly primary factor. He then went on a speaking tour where he told anyone who was dismissive of his grand narrative that they should stop waffling about how complex the factors influence societies are and make their own grand narrative instead.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Yeah. Lot of comments here are really debating what the word "Some" means. Geography has "Some" impact to "Some" degree. At what point does "Some" become a "Major" influence. It was a major theme of the book, so if this current study indicates it was not 'major', only 'some'. Guess that is still valuable re-quantification. Think all the methods used in the study are pretty valuable. Whether we agree or not with Diamond, I think this current study is good to quantify it.

hwillis 3y ago

> Our analyses uncovered significant variation within continents in the magnitude of ecological barriers to cultural transmission, a finding that is consistent with the critique that Diamond's axis of orientation hypothesis is potentially reductionist and overreaching. More importantly, our results indicate that areas within Eurasia do not consistently rank lower than those in other continents across any cost type [...] at none of the time points considered did Eurasia have any clear ecological advantages over other regions. Thus, we find no support for Diamond's claims during the timeframe in which most societies around the world transitioned into an agriculturalist mode of subsistence. Pretty unambiguous

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Guess I only read the summary, where they are more guarded. ""Environmental heterogeneity along Eurasia's major corridors of cultural transmission was not significantly lower than observed in other continents. One of the authors, Russell Gray from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, summarizes the results by saying, "Our findings point out that geography, like genetics and ecology, matters, but it is not destiny." Senior author of the study, Carlos Botero from the University of Texas at Austin, concludes with a word of caution, "We do not claim, by any means, to have a definitive answer on whether the wheels of history turned at different speeds in different parts of the world.""