T1B

Someone gave me a copy. Read it. Not impressed. Guy starts off by claiming flat out that New Guinea natives are smarter than Europeans and North Americans. Nice bit of racism there. His proof? Natives figure out how to use western stuff quickly, while he, a westerner, couldn't get the hang of native skills like following trails. He says we got stupider because of technology. Then he proceeds to basically give most credit to the rise of dominant civilizations due to sheer dumb geography. yet, he claims he's not a geographic determinist.

Despite the guy's academic credentials, he screwed up basic biology (e.g., claiming that dogs aren't truly carnivores...because we put plant products in their dog chow..).

Parts of the book were interesting (like the section on diseases), but basically the book didn't deserve the hype. I found it pretty boring, and I read science stuff all the time. Can't comment on whether it was Pulitzer worthy, since I don't know what it was up against. Then again, I don't take the Pulitzer that seriously, since they still refuse to rescind the prize from that Stalin-apologist Duranty.

If you really want to read it, get it from a library.

Have no intention of reading his sequel, 'Collapse," which didn't get reviews as favorable as GG&S...

Thanks for the review. I had planned on reading this book, but now I will drop it back on the queue. I would recommend Armies of Pestilence by RS Bray if you enjoy the disease/history perspective. To be honest though, I have not finished it yet due to writing my thesis and catching up on lab work. However, I have yet to find any head-shaking claims. I would also recommend Germs by Judith Miller, et al. It seems to me to be a pretty informative and interesting book pertaining to the development of the modern day germ warfare apparatus.

So far, in preparation for the infectious diseases elective I'm teaching next year I've read:

- "Disease & History" by Cartwright & Biddiss (very good)
- "The Great Influenza" by John M. Barry (outstanding; even goes into the history of modern US medical schools)
- "Viruses, Plagues, and Peoples" by Michael Oldstone (good but dry)
- "The Hot Zone" by Richard Preston (not as good as I had hoped but still readable for high school kids)

I've also viewed some videos:

- "American Experience: Influenza 1918" (riveting, showing the human toll via interviews with survivors)

- "Secrets of the Dead" episodes involving the 1918 flu and the Black Plague. The latter one was particularly cool, as it linked genetic resistance to the plague to resistance to HIV infection (same CCR5 mutation).

Believe the Heupel wrote:

Not impressed. Guy starts off by claiming flat out that New Guinea natives are smarter than Europeans and North Americans. Nice bit of racism there.

It's been a while since I've read this, but I don't think this was what he said..

You must have either skipped the prologue or forgotten it, because his thesis that New Guineans are smarter than us is all over it.

Here's some examples (I've bolded the offending parts):

Page 19:
"In fact, as I shall explain in a moment, modern 'Stone Age' peoples are on the average probably more intelligent, not less intelligent, than industrialized peoples.."

Page 20:
" From the very beginning of my work with New Guineans, they impressed me as being on the average more intelligent, more alert, more expressive, and more interested in things and people around them than the average European or American is. At some tasks that one might reasonable suppose to reflect aspects of brain function, such as the ability to form a mental map of unfamiliar surroundings, they appear considerably more adept than Westerners. ."

Page 21:
"It's easy to recognize two reasons why my impression that New Guineans are smarter than Westerners may be correct. ...

For his "scientific explanations":

Page 22:
" ..natural selection promoting genes for intelligence has probably been more ruthless in New Guinea than more densely populated, politically complex societies, where natural selection for body chemistry [against pathogens] was instead more potent."

" Besides this genetic reason, there is also a second reason why New Guineans may have come to be smarter than Westerners....[he then goes on to discuss how passive electronic entertainment has made us intellectually lazy]...This effect surely contributes a non-genetic component to the superior average mental function displayed by New Guineans."

"That is, in mental ability New Guineans are probable genetically superior to Westerners, and they surely are superior in escaping the devastating developmental disadvantages under which most children in industrialized societies now grow up."

Page 23:
"Why did New Guineans wind up technologically primitive, despite what I believe to be their superior intelligence?"

Hell, the whole thrust of the book is him trying to explain why the allegedly "intellectually superior" New Guineans haven't contributed dick to science, technology, medicine, culture, etc. He has to find a reason why "intellectually inferior" groups like the Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, Europeans, etc. somehow, despite their obvious intellectual shortcomings, came to run the world. His answer - sheer, dumb accidents of geography (which impacted disease, conflict, etc.).

If Diamond had argued that a minority culture was intellectually inferior, depsite any scientific trappings, he would have been pilloried. However, since he wants to play the iconoclast and be racist against whites, he's lauded as a radical thinker with great theories.

The guy is a scientific simpleton and a racist. I'm glad I saved myself $16.95 plus tax in having the book loaned to me.

Believe the Heupel wrote:Well, like I said, it's been a while since I read it, so yeah, I've probably forgotten what you just quoted. My impression wasn't the same as yours, but that's fine.

So is your contention that New Guineans are just flat-out dumber than Europeans?

Nope. My contention is that they're no dumber or smarter. They're just frigging people, bits of protoplasm munchin' lettuce like the rest of us slobs.

I don't disagree that geographic, climatological, agricultural factors played a role in Western dominance...I just disagree with Diamond's contention that they are the pretty much the entire explanation.

My problem is largely with the way he framed his argument - he comes right out and says as if it's indisputable point that these Stone Age culture New Guinea folks ARE an average smarter than the rest of us. That's frigging racist, in addition to being an unproven point (even he admits it's based on his own anecdotal experience).

In order for him to prop up his unproven racist point, he then has to, via pages and pages of very questionable arguments, show that the only reason Western culture succeeded -despite the apparent stupidity of the "race"- was due to blind frigging luck in settling in a good spot.

I've read some pretty hard-hitting criticisms of Diamond's works (Collapse is even worse, apparently) by anthropologists and historians who weren't lefties, and even if you sift out their political bias, they make good points. Diamond just cannot adequately explain Shakespeare, Newton, DaVinci, etc. through his interesting but unsupported (as far as the level to which he claims) thesis. Additionally, his critics discuss cultures that have progressed out of the Stone Age depite the same conditions as his New Guinea "geniuses."

Human nature is far too complex for Dianond's thesis. In attempting to argue against the prior racism, he props up a new one.

Damn, this is beginning to sound like "Tips on How To Beat the Computer at Civ III"

why are they still running around in the jungle with bones in their noses chucking spears at monkeys.

Hey, a pimp has to collect.

mvscal wrote:Anyway, get with the times, Rat. Civ 4 has been out for months.

Yeah, I know...almost picked it up at the Apple Store this past weekend, but I couldn't justify fnding yet another reason to waste time on the computer..