Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics
blog.daviskedrosky.com
Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics
1–10 of 168 posts
Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics
#2I guess this is the historians' orangutan.
Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics
#3All 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.
Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics
#4All 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]
Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics
#5Wow. 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.
Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics
#6I always found McNeill's "Plagues and Peoples" a much better read than Diamond's book on semi-overlapping topics.
Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics
#7Wow. 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.
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.
Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics
#8> 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.
Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics
#9> 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…
> > 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.
Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics
#10> 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…
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.