Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

Mr Epee · 08-08-2005, 01:10 PM

This is a Pulitzer Prize winning book, a New York Times Best Seller, and a winner of the Phi Beta Kappa Award in Science.

The author is James Diamond a professor at UCLA, who, in 1999, won a National Medal of Science.
--------------------------

I'm reading this book right now, and am currently very disappointed.

In the author's own words the purpose of the book is to examine the following "History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples' environments, not because of the biological differences among peoples themselves."

So basically he is trying to take a non-racist approach to explain why Europeans developed the tools of conquest and easily dominated the rest of the world.

The writing is good, and even if your ignore his tendency to only present one side of some hotly debated anthropological topics (i.e. the transition btw Cro-mags and Neanderthals)... then you are still left with the following.

Advanced societies have more developed divisions of labor, and can support larger populations, who when equipped with the goods produced by that specialized work force, easily displace primitive societies/cultures.

Some places on our planet encourage these divisions of labor, others do not.

Haves defeat have nots.

Ya think?

oso97 · 08-08-2005, 01:16 PM

Mr. Epee....

Finish reading it first. Its not as racist as you might think. Although I can see how some would think it is. I disagree with a couple of his specific points, but overall I think his basic premise, that enviornmental/geographic factors influence the development of a society is a valid one.

Mr Epee · 08-08-2005, 01:27 PM

I didn't think he was making a racist explaination... in fact, in his quote I listed, he explicitly states that he is trying to do exactly the opposite...

I am just disappointed that his 500 page book covers revolves around a single point that could have been answered in a 1000 word essay.

keith · 08-08-2005, 01:33 PM

..of course the problem with whole hypothesis is the humble potato.

It also fails to explain why we aren't all speaking chinese.

I'm with Mr Epee dumb luck and chance is often the only valid explanation.

oso97 · 08-08-2005, 01:52 PM

actually, he presents a fairly interesting hypothesis about why we aren't all speaking chinese. its at least plausable.

Dumb luck plays a big part of it. Question is, what factors are influenced by dumb luck? thats the subject of the book.

keith · 08-08-2005, 02:17 PM

Yes the arguements are all plausible but the books is so tautological it makes my head spin. He starts from the observation of the success of European expansion and then finds explanations for that success.

Its not a bad book I just don't see what the fuss is about - I lump it with books like 'the selfish gene' which get hyped as quite profound or insightful when in fact they are just well written (a skill more people could use) which allows their authors to gracefully pirouette around the flaws in the arguement.

Epee_Pox · 08-08-2005, 02:34 PM

Finish the book. It's not a perfect thesis, but it's not bad so far as it goes.

His reasoning meshes with the historian's mantra that "history is geography." Certain few parts of the world had geography that enabled efficient farming and robust diets, and thus the development of societies that could get past mere subsistence. Certain parts of the world therefore, merely by chance, had a head start on others. He builds from this basic concept to all his other conclusions. Better agriculture led to the development of cities, which led to civilizations that could develop new technologies and amass knowledge, and which could better compete against other peoples when they encountered each other. He also points out the effects of geography on immunities to disease and on

Far from being racist, his theory is that no race is superior to any other, but only that certain regions lucked out by pure chance of geography.

It's not history in the sense of human events and names and dates. It's more of a general attempt to explain why some people managed to out-compete others as the human organism has spread and migrated around the world.

Not a perfect explanation by a long shot, but definitely a good start for further investigation.

Mr Epee · 08-08-2005, 02:39 PM

I have a tendency to highlight and write notes in books as I read, and I hadn't even made it out of the introduction before I had the "??? careful ??? - presupposed conclusion" and "??? careful ??? - poor science" comments flowing. I don't get the hype, and the scientific awards.

Like I said, it's well written, and I will definately finish it, but I am disappointed by the hype given to such a simple, and in my opinion, obvious conclusion to such an interesting subject. And as keith pointed out it is extremely tautological, and spinny.

I recently felt similar when I read Blink! by Malcolm Gladwell. Slightly better informed, but repeatedly bashed in the head with a simple concept repeated so many times, that I became suspicious that it couldn't be properly supported. (funny because that was kind of the subject of that book)

oso97 · 08-08-2005, 02:59 PM

*nods* I'd have to agree that that while the hypothesis presented makes perfect and obvious sense, the way in which the author attempts to prove it leaves a lot to be desired.

There's a lot of stuff where the "proofs" don't really go with the point he's trying to make. Interesting in and of themselves, and often supporting another aspect entirely. But, all in all, I'd still come down with a net positive. I think its a book that could have benefited from an editor who was somewhat well versed in the subject himself.

And "Selfish Gene" was just stupid. Of course, I think Richard Dawkins is an idiot. Give me some good Stephen Jay Gould on that kind of subject any day.

prototoast · 08-08-2005, 03:14 PM

I read it 5 or 6 years ago, and I remember feeling the same way. His geographic evidence is nice, and certainly not a trivial factor, but he does completely ignore what people have done for themselves.

Mr Epee · 08-08-2005, 03:19 PM

But on the plus side, it does have a few nude photos of the natives.

keith · 08-08-2005, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oso97

There's a lot of stuff where the "proofs" don't really go with the point he's trying to make. Interesting in and of themselves, and often supporting another aspect entirely. But, all in all, I'd still come down with a net positive. I think its a book that could have benefited from an editor who was somewhat well versed in the subject himself.

Which is the whole problem with the popular science/history/whatever genre - if you actually have to qualify your conclusions with all the valid alternatives you end up with a book that is most definitely not going to be 'popular'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oso97

And "Selfish Gene" was just stupid. Of course, I think Richard Dawkins is an idiot. Give me some good Stephen Jay Gould on that kind of subject any day.

... not that much more stupid than some of Gould's books (now there is the perfect example of someone who could write popular science) if we are going to hold them up to the rigours of all out critique.

To add another name to the list; Steven Pinker might be worth having a read - and way easier to read than Chomsky (which is damning with faint praise).

Inquartata · 08-08-2005, 07:50 PM

I saw the PBS version of the book ( which I have not read ). It had some interesting insights, but I felt it was too deterministic and left too many questions unanswered.

geezer · 08-08-2005, 08:05 PM

Interesting...I "believe" the insights are correct...the job of coherent expression of all detail is so Herculean that it's truely impossible to tie it all together...being articulate isn't the problem. How can one describe the content of an "epiphany" instead of just the subject?

mrbiggs · 08-08-2005, 10:57 PM

Haha, what a coincidence. I'm reading it right now as required reading for school.

I think it's a reasonably interesting book. What Mr. Epee said is true, it does go on and on about stuff that could really be shortened, but then again, I think that alot of the details are interesting anyway. The only problem I have with it is the way it was set up. At the beggining and end of the book, every section and many chapters, there is a long introduction or conclusion. "This is what I'm trying to prove...this is what I just proved...this is what I will be proving in chapter 13..." is sort of annoying. Now I just skip over those parts and I find it enjoyable.

Have At You · 08-09-2005, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I saw the PBS version of the book ( which I have not read ). It had some interesting insights, but I felt it was too deterministic and left too many questions unanswered.

I read the book when it first came out. Don't remember all the details, but the general gist is what I came away with, and which has stayed with me. And the general gist seems a reasonable enough explanation.

Then I saw the PBS special. Or rather, the first segment. Yaaaawwwn. How many speeded-up sunrises & sunsets & clouds moving can one really put in a single hour's program, after all. And it took the whole hour to make points that could have been better made in 20 minutes. How many times do we have to watch the same 5-second clips of blacksmithing or cutting sago pith? Didn't even bother watching the rest of the series.

Don't feel the need to go back and re-read the book, either. He made his point, it was a good one, but now let's see what has developed since then.

(Huh, I guess I ought to check and see if anyone HAS written something that takes this to another level of understanding. Better reasoned, etc. I'd buy it...)

Teme · 08-09-2005, 06:33 AM

It's rather common in general history (when you go from big bang to inhabitating Mars and beyond) 'theories' to have a single explaining factor. Now, mr. Diamond is a physiologist, and it should not be a suprise he believes parameters relating to physiology to explain everything in human history.

I believe the fuzz was all about this point of view being a new one (at least to grand public -- or media) 10 years ago. Nowadays, those parts of it that have 'staying power' have been accepted and assimilated to mainstream history. That alone may make it look rather simplistic (and the single-track-mindedness) not completely unlike a first description of a wheel might look to a modern reader

foildad · 08-09-2005, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

I didn't think he was making a racist explaination... in fact, in his quote I listed, he explicitly states that he is trying to do exactly the opposite...

I am just disappointed that his 500 page book covers revolves around a single point that could have been answered in a 1000 word essay.

Too many notes!!

Mr Epee · 08-09-2005, 01:06 PM

Yes, your highness... that is precisely the problem. :-)

Inquartata · 08-09-2005, 06:17 PM

I'm always wary of books written by authors from outside the field in question, to begin with. Or by journalists.

The PBS special began with rather a long bit about the author and his lifelong studies of parrots in New Guinea or some such. Eh---so what expertise does an ornithologist have in history and cultural anthropology?

Then some of the conclusions depended on unspoken premises which were none too well explored. Like: people in Europe and Asia developed immunities to diseases because they lived with domesticated animals. New World, Australian and sub-Saharan African peoples didn't have domesticated animals, thus didn't develop the immunities, and were vulnerable to European microbes. OK, fine, but---WHY didn't they domesticate animals? There were certainly animals around that could have BEEN domesticated. Take Africa. Why was the water buffalo never domesticated? It was in Asia. So was the elephant. There are doglike creatures in South America. Capybaras. Etc. So why was only the llama used? And why wasn't it lived with in the same way household beasts were elsewhere in the world?

His thesis was "People in those areas were no less clever/intelligent/brave/capable etc. than people in Europe and Asia". If so, why did they not domesticate animals like the Europeans?

And the whole "Eurasia is long east to west, Africa and South America north to west" premise also struck me as not having been sufficiently justified as a cause of an effect.

Again, he had some interesting ideas, but I have a hard time accepting his conclusions based on the theories he presented. He wants to make geography the whole story, and that's a bit too reductionistic for me...