| don't see the issue |
| ||
|
I have a degree in biology and a minor an anthropology and didn't feel like Diamond's book was very flawed given its length, but any time the book is brought up I hear of how Diamond didn't know what he was talking about and missed a lot of things (which are never explained). Explaining the current state of world human civilization and how it came to be in ~400 pages is bound to leave a few loose ends, but I don't really see why people complain so much about his book. Could anyone hear explain? |
| bnfg |
| ||
|
There was a thread on one aspect of this, a few months back: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=4297252&thread=4297035 In brief, the OP said that Diamond never addresses differences in average intelligence as a potential contributor to differences in cultural attainment, and actually makes a misleading, erroneous statement about two different cultures' intelligences' being equal. Based on linguistic data, he made statements about the peopling of the Pacific that now appear (based on DNA data) to be incorrect. Nothing bad there, he was just using the best data available at the time. Those are examples of the two general categories into which criticisms of GG&S fall. The book covers a lot of territory and "paints with a broad brush" (to quote one critic), and it's perfectly reasonable that there would be some innocent *factual* errors, like the thing about peopling the Pacific. People's harsher criticisms tend to be for what they see as *willful* errors or "ignorings" on Diamond's part. I'd suggest entering "guns germs and steel criticism" in Google, for many many links. BTW, let's not discount entirely the envy that some of Diamond's academic critics must feel, when they see the book's success! |
| Scooter mcbology |
| ||
|
Diamond speaks about the capacity for intelligence being equal but his ideas are simplistic and generalities to be sure. His book is a good intro to anthropology. |
| Professional Scientist |
| ||
So anthropology is simplistic? |