4 ms·

The book is internally inconsistent, with the author cherry-picking "facts" to support his own prejudices. In some cases the same data is used for mutually exc

The book is internally inconsistent, with the author cherry-picking "facts" to support his own prejudices. In some cases the same data is used for mutually exclusive conclusions in different chapters. Basically, he making up conclusions and then throwing any shit against the wall in the hope it sticks, with no regard for what he's already said in the same book. It's pseudo-science, designed to let complacent readers validate their prejudices, and pat themselves on the back.

MostlyStable 3y ago
>validate their prejudices I have never understood this particular criticism of the work. It is, if anything, an extremely strident argument against prejudice. The entire point is that differences in current day development are not due to innate deficiencies in the people but rather at least in part due to historical quirks of geography and ecology and therefore current development level says very close to nothing about the intrinsic potential or capabilities of anyone from any region of the world.
- pja 3y ago
  Yes. GG&S might be wrong, but the claim that it's explicitly racist has always seemed to me to be an astonishingly tendentious misreading. It turns out that there are lots of readers out there who wilfully confuse "is" for "ought". Even when an author goes out of their way to emphasise that they are only describing their view of reality, not in any way assigning virtue to it.
  - vintermann 3y ago
    Most of the GGS-hatred I've seen has come from people who hate that Diamond rejects racial differences or innate differences in will and spirit ("civilization", "culture" etc.) as an explanation. Then there's some very few left-wing critics who hate it for basically the same reason, but with opposite sign, since it implicitly also rejects that western civilization or the white race is uniquely evil. Then there's some grumbling from academics who hate a popularizer for all the reasons you'd expect.
- anamax 3y ago
  > It is, if anything, an extremely strident argument against prejudice. Not at all. It actually plays into one of the most popular prejudices in the west. Here's how you know if you have that prejudice. Do you think "I'm not like those people."

MostlyStable 3y ago

>validate their prejudices I have never understood this particular criticism of the work. It is, if anything, an extremely strident argument against prejudice. The entire point is that differences in current day development are not due to innate deficiencies in the people but rather at least in part due to historical quirks of geography and ecology and therefore current development level says very close to nothing about the intrinsic potential or capabilities of anyone from any region of the world.

pja 3y ago
Yes. GG&S might be wrong, but the claim that it's explicitly racist has always seemed to me to be an astonishingly tendentious misreading. It turns out that there are lots of readers out there who wilfully confuse "is" for "ought". Even when an author goes out of their way to emphasise that they are only describing their view of reality, not in any way assigning virtue to it.
- vintermann 3y ago
  Most of the GGS-hatred I've seen has come from people who hate that Diamond rejects racial differences or innate differences in will and spirit ("civilization", "culture" etc.) as an explanation. Then there's some very few left-wing critics who hate it for basically the same reason, but with opposite sign, since it implicitly also rejects that western civilization or the white race is uniquely evil. Then there's some grumbling from academics who hate a popularizer for all the reasons you'd expect.
anamax 3y ago
> It is, if anything, an extremely strident argument against prejudice. Not at all. It actually plays into one of the most popular prejudices in the west. Here's how you know if you have that prejudice. Do you think "I'm not like those people."