Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

blog.daviskedrosky.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 168 posts

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#11

Post by swombat »

soperj wrote: post #9
WalterBright wrote: post #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…

> > 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 grou…

I read Diamond a long time ago but what he was contrasting was that the Chinese Empire was centralised and so when they decided not to expand, that applied to the whole empire, while the Europeans were fragmented so even if Germany and France and England didn't want to send any ships, Portugal and Spain could be convinced to take a risk.

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#12

Post by George83728 »

I never bought into the claims that Jared Diamond is some sort of racist; he book is plainly anti-racist and anybody who says otherwise probably never read it. Honestly.

That said, some of Jared Diamond's arguments are really lame.. just poorly thought out. For instance, is claim that the use of wheels for transportation is in some way gated by the availability of pack animals. This guy has never used a wheel barrow I guess... of course he has and mentions them much later in his book, but dismissing the point as a "puzzling non-invention". This realization doesn't seem to have him question his earlier assertion that wheels for transportation would only be invented where pack animals are available.

I think it's got nothing to do with pack animals, and the truth is that wheelbarrows, and wheels for transportation generally, are one of those inventions that are obvious only in retrospect. Even after you've invented wheels on toys, it isn't necessarily immediately obvious that wheels could have practical applications as well. A very small handful of people in the history of humanity had this idea and most people never did (and just copied it from other people). It's not because of geography or ecology, just shear dumb luck.

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#13

Post by civilized »

angst_ridden wrote: post #7
jrh3 wrote: post #5

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.

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.

I 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?

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#14

Post by aslfjiasf »

thatoneguy wrote: post #3

All 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.

This review suggests that the game is now called "Tribes": https://amzn.com/dp/1556343558, but the author is not Jared Diamond. Is this the game you remember?

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#15

Post by yyyk »

The author needs to look at this in a wider context. GG&S may be defensible, but Collapse is pretty horrible, trying to force environmental explanations at the cost of downplaying European slave raids (Easter Islands) or utter absurdity (Diamond's suggestion that Viking Greenlanders preferred to starve than to eat fish). Diamond had a thesis and forced the facts to fit in the expense of integrity. After Collapse, it made much more sense to look askance at GG&S.

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#17

Post by jrh3 »

angst_ridden wrote: post #7
jrh3 wrote: post #5

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.

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.

I 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...

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#18

Post by peterfirefly »

swombat wrote: post #11
soperj wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > 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 grou…

I read Diamond a long time ago but what he was contrasting was that the Chinese Empire was centralised and so when they decided not to expand, that applied to the whole empire, while the Europeans were fragmented so even if Germany and France and England didn't want to send any ships, Portugal and Spain could be convinced to take a risk.

Columbus' 3 small ships were also vastly cheaper than Zheng He's large fleet that had some really large ships in it (even if we dismiss the reported sizes as utterly unrealistic).

There's also the fact that the European ships at the time were more robust than the Chinese ships -- because robust ships had been really useful for sailing along the Atlantic coast for trade/fishing.

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#19

Post by the__alchemist »

I had a hard time interpreting the various criticisms from academics of Diamond in a way other than: This goes against our field's dogma, so I will fight it. Ie, I'm suspicious that, given the conclusions he came to, they would argue against it regardless of methods or the strength of his case. Eg, He underplays the role of culture? He's wrong.
Post reply on HN