Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

For the most part, Nate, it would be tough to argue with you regarding your take on what Diamond said in this book. I think the popularity of it, though, came from the way he assembled it and offered it in an accessible way to the non-anthropologist. You gotta admit, the prooof of the pudding here was in the eating. You have good and useful insights, in my estimation. One star, though? Maybe a little harsh? Thanks for taking the time to write. It's the argument in science that counts most.

Good points. With GGS, I think I had such high expectations that a let down was inevitable. Now I look forward to reading your novel, which has also garnerned some impressive praise, so don't let me down :). And, that is quite a life story. As a Montana novelist, have you read The Big Sky or anything else by AB Guthrie?

Hi Nate, I haven't read Guthrie's The Big Sky, but I've been told to before. I just ordered it. If it's as good as you say, Christmas is coming and I have half a dozen people for whom this would make a good gift. Thanks for the tip!

William wrote: "Hi Nate, I haven't read Guthrie's The Big Sky, but I've been told to before. I just ordered it. If it's as good as you say, Christmas is coming and I have half a dozen people for whom this would..."

William wrote: "Hi Nate, I haven't read Guthrie's The Big Sky, but I've been told to before. I just ordered it. If it's as good as you say, Christmas is coming and I have half a dozen people for whom this would..."

Let me know what you think of The Big Sky!

I have to disagree about the boring parts, except near the end. Diamond included relevant anecdotes about specific events and individuals, and simplified the concepts for non-scientists without dumbing it down.

Could not agree with you more. I am not finished with the novel yet, but so far I haven't taken away any new information at all. Not what I call a great scientific masterpiece; more like gold old common sense.

I still don't understand why so many people loved it!

Can't wait to read your book Nate! Where can I pick it up?

Well, I don't know. one star seems a little harsh, however Isee where you're coming from. But common sense isn't so common these days; I would have to agree with some of the other commenters and say that this book is mostly geared towards a audience that doesn't circulate around scientific literature often. It just offers simple logic to explain basic theory, which to a reader like me is great; because while I'm not unintelligent, I do require some segues to be pointed out to me. While it might be silly to others; I think this book's magic is more in the presentation & composition than the direct information.
Thanks for your review! Always a pleasure!

Nate, if Diamond's point seems old or obvious to you, there are at least two explanations. 1) You've long been aware of something that most other people missed, and which they've only just learned now from this book, or 2) You've missed the point.

Based on your review, I think it's more likely to be #2. Don't worry, it happens to everybody. Diamond isn't really talking about natural selection here, any more than Darwin was talking about sex. Understanding the concept of selection is necessary to getting Diamond's point, but the actual point is quite different.

It's a flavor of geographical determinism. Had you considered that the axial direction of a continent could have a deterministic impact on the broad sweep of human history? Had you extrapolated from the structural character of language and society to a predictive model of human interaction? These things, in their complexity and relative novelty, are fascinating to me and many others, and they're just a small piece of the whole.

It's not a perfect book. He overreaches his thesis toward the end, I think. But it was an important book, for me, and I think it could still be good to you too.

Here's my point: I drive a new car, have a nice house, and am never hungry. I'm bright enough, but have no clue how to write an iPhone app or rebuild a Diesel engine. There are tens of thousands of souls living in southern Africa and Pakistan who can do those things. It seems obvious to me that the fact that they live in poverty has nothing to do with anyone having superior or inferior intellect or industriousness. So maybe you don't give me enough credit Daniel. Maybe it's actually number 1. Don't worry, it happens to everyone.

Diamond does provide an explanation for how things ended up this way. Obviously democracy has something to do with it as well, but Diamond would argue that democratic societies exist today because of the ancient environmental advantages he details, and I'll buy that. I will also concede that natural selection is not really the point here. But I will never agree that this book was not boring.

Hi Nate,

Your right, Diamond doesn't need to convince you that some inherent superiority is the reason for your material wealth. Not everyone knows that for themselves, though; many folks believe very strongly that they created the conditions for success from hard work and talent, and while that might be true in the context of their community it's awfully hard to see how talent and effort matter when your comparing yourself to...well, a poor person from a poor place in a hot and dangerous part of the world. And that's part of Diamond's overreach, I think: he makes it seem as if we can extrapolate from geography to somewhere near our modern outcome, and I didn't quite buy it. Too much complexity, now, with global trade and communication. Perhaps.

But most of the book isn't about us. He says: hey, why did the conquistadores show up with horses and guns and destroy the Aztecs and Incas? Why not an Incan army mounted on big llamas and conquering Madrid? But that's not the question he answers, because imperial Spain was the end of the story.

Why did civilization begin where it did? Why did old world populations transmit disease to new world, and not the other way? There are reasons for these things, structural reasons, a kind of historical gravity; as if you could weigh all the inputs of two villages ten thousand years ago, one in Syria and the other in Central America, and know without history that one would end up dominating the other somewhere down the line.

The line is long and broken, of course, and to attach ourselves to one side or the other is a game we play for pride and community but it's not really worth anything. Still, that pride and sense of community makes a lot of people say things like: hey, we're the winners in this game, and it's survival of the fittest, so history has judged us well. And Diamond is showing why that just isn't so. Drop two rocks and whichever reaches the ground first is the winner. Equal rocks. But from where were they dropped? Same height? Same planet? Because they're only equal if the context is equal, and it never is.

You make great points and you're not boring. I think I would rather read a book by you than him!

Oh, and Nate...

Boring is personal. I would never try to argue that you should have been excited to read this book. I was; I loved it. But that's me. This book went straight to the heart of the sorts of information I love, and if the presentation was ever slow I couldn't really notice; I was just too busy thinking about stuff.

It's a hard problem, though, because I think that the subject of this book is perhaps the most exiting thing ever, a truly powerful idea. It's exciting like a theory of combustion might be exciting for race car mechanic, or how fission might have felt for the physicists who worked on the bomb: like a scary picture of a giant truth that makes your whole world seem...connected, I guess.

So what's the exciting idea here? Damned if I know. This book leaves me feeling like I'm one of those old blind wise men with his hands on the elephant. Is it a forklift? A firehose? Marmaduke? I don't know, but I do know it's fascinating and huge. I think it's determinism, in a small and a big way.

When I say 'determinism' I mean something like 'expected outcome'. Like: give me a detailed picture of everything on earth a million years ago, and give me the rules that govern the material universe, and I can tell you what 2013 will look like. The specifics would be totally different: thousands of years one way or another, Bills win the Super Bowl, stuff like that. But the basic shapes would be recognizable, because with enough data you can see the shape of things.

That's what I read in this book: how to see the shape of things. I'll never actually do it, of course -- too much data, too many factors, and I can barely call a bluff -- but just knowing that the universe is knowable in its fuzzy outline, front to back and sideways...that's like magic. It's amazing. And if it could be told to you that way, in a way that made it feel that powerful to you, we'll...I bet that'd be worth another star at least.

Aww, shucks. My day...made. Thanks.

I think that it's a fascinating read, but could've made his points in much less detail and with more parsimony

Can you recommend a better book on a similar subject? I haven't read this one because I have found his 2 books (collapse and Rise & Fall of the Third Chimpanzee) to be rather boring (it took me years to get through) and they had logic problems.

I don't think Jared Diamond really starts repeating himself until the later portion of the book, and at that point I'd agree that it gets really boring.

But for the most part I think the long and detailed chapters give you a good look at Jared Diamond's thought process, and go into a good amount of detail.

Thank you.

Why does it have to be revolutionary ideas? Some people obviously haven't heard about them so you can simply see this book as a way to educate people. Instead of it being outdated and boring.

I agree with Peter and most of the people who have given

I agree with most people who have given this book a rating of 3.98 that this a a very good book. It is not a novel as Nate called it. A rating of one star is reserved for trash such as El James Trilogy of Fifty Shades of Gray. This book is based on sound science that Jared Diamond shared with us from other scientists. Just because he does not have an anthropology or a biology degree does not make his claims unfounded. As an analogy I can offer that The Beatles never graduated from college yet wrote some of the greatest pop songs ever. A ONE Star? You're shooting blanks Nate.

you lose credibility if you think I called this a novel

Nate, not only do you miss the point of the book but the one you make is invalid.

The argument made by Diamond is not the same at all as the argument of "The Origin of Species".

One can accept the theory of evolution as "natural selection" and remain ignorant of "why" certain groups in the World have dominated others - particularly why black has dominated white. The theory of evolution does *not* explain that.

Reading Diamond's book with any real understanding it is quite clear that this is not a book about evolution but a book about why particular groups of people have been dominant over others at exactly the same stage of evolution.

It is too grand a term to call your review an anaysis as it so blatantly superficial and flawed. No one should consider it as a valid recommendation *not* to read this book.

Contrary to your misconceptions about it, this book is an amazing work and does much to explain the nature of human relations and why those relationships have been, in so many ways, one-sided in the dominance of particular groups of people in the World.

Quite apart from that main theme which is, of itself, *enormous*, the evidence and examples given to support it are superbly informative and provide and incidental history lesson and amazing vicarious journey on the side.

I feel saddened that you can't appreciate these aspects of the work and are so quick to dismiss it.

Roger, I agree it is not a book about evolution - never claimed it was. I stand by my assertions that the book is boring, over-hyped, and that natural selection explains many of his points. I DO NOT believe any race is inherently more intelligent or industrious than any other. His grand point seems to be in debunking this theory; my argument is it needn't be debunked (so boringly) to those of us who never subscribed to this fallacy in the first place.

Assuming you are not a hunter gatherer in New Guinea; before reading this book, did you think you were inherently smarter than them?

Maybe I am a genius, because I didn't. Plus it's just boring. That's my main beef. I feel duped, I was never so excited to read a book, and then it sucked.

Hahahaha

Once you take intelligence off the table the rest of the book is hard to take seriously and Nate the reveiw is harsh but fair.

When you say "smarter than them," how do you mean?

Indeed. I agree it's overrated yet it is still a great book nonetheless.

Nate, you are entitled to you opinion, of course. However you rating for this book and your review of it are entirely misleading.

Most people will not have considered human progress and outcomes from the perspective taken by Jared Diamond and my assessment of your rather arrogant dismissal of the concepts discussed are that you probably haven't either - despite you implying that what he describes is something commonly understood. I disagree and, in fact, suggest that quite the contrary is the case.

To me, your comments typify those of arrogant dismissal of what you can't quite comprehend. The problem isn't Jared's book or thesis but your ability to handle it. Your own preconceptions, which stand out clearly in your comments, are interfering with your ability to learn. The impression you give is that you know it all already .

Sorry to disappoint you but you don't - and won't ever come even close unless you open your mind, gain some humility and seek the wisdom, novel and unique in what you read, rather than pursuing unsound criticisms or focusing on minor quibbles in order to denigrate what you cannot appreciate.

However, as the comments to which I refer were made several years ago, perhaps you are now in a different place and have a more positive, questioning and open attitude today. I hope so. Have a good year - I wish you well, regardless of our differences of opinion. I respect anyone who will at least put their name to their views and be prepared to state them publicly.

ps. I'm not sure how I came to be in this place again after all this time but something popped up this discussion on my computer and I just felt a need to follow up because I hadn't seen most of the comments subsequent to my own.

Yet, he is not "mostly right." IQ scores vary greatly. Aboriginal Australians have some of the lowest IQs on the planet. And here's a fascinating fact: IQ cannot be changed by more than a few insignificant points. It's predetermined genetically.

Roger, I thought the book was boring. I felt duped because I was so excited to read it. But then it was horribly boring and dry. Cool cover though. Just disregard the rest of my review if that helps you. Peace

over-rated & over-stuffed

Was written in the 20th C

@alexander Halbrook
You sound like a nazi scientist. Get help.

you are just one of those white trash I believe and I think you may not even try any Asian food as you think those are for rural people... congrats on your skin as you born as white! may white god bless you and your family