Live data from Hacker News

Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

blog.daviskedrosky.com

21–30 of 168 posts

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#21
post #15

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…

I always get a little suspicious of big nonfiction books arguing some big thesis that arrive with fawning reviews from all the right places and whose authors immediately get crowned as important public intellectuals.

These books often seem to have a life cycle: sensation, canon, “but wait a minute,” and then lastly forgotten.

I figure the initial splash might mean the author just knows the right people in New York. They seem like the nonfiction equivalent of what someone I know once called a “tobadny” which stands for “trendy overhyped book about dysfunctional New Yorkers.” These are the occasional literary fiction sensations about… well… dysfunctional New Yorkers that arrive with gushing reviews in The New Yorker.

A merely very talented author outside the New York scene usually has to wait until they are dead to be noticed.

In our scene the equivalent would be an overhyped overfunded startup run by someone who knows the right people in the Valley that is the hot thing for five minutes. Meanwhile someone in Nebraska who invented a working Alcubierre Drive will never get funding.

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#22
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.

the 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

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#23
post #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 grou…

Nothing in the quoted passage suggests that China does not have different dialects. But it doesn't take a history professor to recognize that China has been under centralized governments of much more comprehensive reach in space and time than Europe ever has, and it is with these periods of unity and stability that Chinese culture most identifies itself.

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#24
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.

the 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 po…

Yep. 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).

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#25
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.

Are 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?

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#26
post #11
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.

I also wonder which two islands are considered large out of GB, Ireland, Iceland, Corsica, Sicily... I feel like there's a couple of big islands around China too... Taiwan, some in Japan, Borneo, Philippines for instance. Indigenous Taiwanese settled the whole south Pacific.

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#27
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/Ug…

[deleted]

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#28
post #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 D…

N & S America civilizations were quite fragmented, as well as African ones.

Re: Jared Diamond: A Reply to His Critics

#30
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…

Nothing in the quoted passage suggests that China does not have different dialects. But it doesn't take a history professor to recognize that China has been under centralized governments of much more comprehensive reach in space and time than Europe ever has, and it is with these periods of unity and stability that Chinese culture most identifies itself.

This is true now. But before, most people would have been loyal firstly to their area, speak a (quite possibly non-Chinese or even Sino-Tibetan) language or dialect only understood in their area, and at would at most have heard the names of some far-off places. It was not that different to Europe. And that's the relatively Chinese areas. Don't forget also that up until the 20th century large areas of present-day China were demonstrably not Chinese, in that nobody could speak or read Chinese in the area and they had adopted virtually zero Chinese language or culture.
Post reply on HN