Your review just saved me from wasting two weeks of my life that otherwise, would've been spent reading this book.

It's worth reading, if you realize it's a work of speculative fiction. ;)

But glad I saved you time and hopefully money!

Just curious what theory(s) you subscribe to? What is Diamond missing. I'll disclose I'm a chemist by training and if I put on my scientist hat, I'm not interested in specific truths only general truths. Plus what more is there than materialism? Diamond pursued the topic the exact same way I would. Any help would be appreciated.

Yes, the fact that Diamond pursued the topic the exact way a non-Anthropology-trained scientist would is my point. ;)

There are dozens of types of Anthropological schools of theory, and they borrow liberally from philosophy, sociology, psychology, biology, you name it. There are many books about Anth theory in my books list. There are a decent place to start.

NO ONE theory explains humans. Many theories mixed might start to explain humans, and not always the same mixture in every situation. You cannot approach a human culture the same way you would a microbial one. Because there are no laws.

I can see Aaron saying "Well yes there are, we all eat and excrete!" Actually, no we don't perhaps. Some people fast. Some people even claim to live on air and never excrete. Yes, the Breatharians are probably lying. But it still negates even the simple "law" that everyone eats, because some claim not to. But human culture is not entirely based on general truths like eating. Anthropology takes a simple idea like we all eat and says how, why, where, with whom, when, what, what do we not, why not, who owns it, who made it, who gathered it, who does it give power to, etc etc etc all over ONE simple aspect of life - eating.

Whereas when we go to the lab to find out what a microbe is eating we pretty much either find out nothing, or what they eat, and then we are done. General truths about humans? We all probably eat, many of us have sex and children then we all probably die. While doing so we probably pee and or poop. And most likely breathe. There is likelihood we live with or near other people and communicate with them, and complex and simple behaviors are exhibited between us.

After that there is not one single solitary person living or dead who knows the truth about why we do anything and can say it is The Truth, but there are a lot of people who want to know, and some who pretend to (like Jared Diamond).

I'm ok with multiple theories and I cringed when Diamond suggest anthropology should be turned into a purely physical science. But please give science some credit, personally I know chemistry actively uses multiple contradictory models at the same time. I could offer obscure stuff from my niche but thats a waste of time. Sticking to famous stuff, relativity has not replaced Newtonian physics, in most situations Newtonian physics is good enough.

There are a variety of beliefs regarding how science's models relate to the our assumption of objective truth. But we all know that objective truth is an assumption. No good scientist ever claims to know objective truth or The Truth. But we search for knowledge that is better than what we have; something that fits our data better. Can you prove that there is no one theory, is that The Truth or is that an assumption.

As far as the types of questions we ask about microbe's food consumption (or respiration) it pretty much matches the set of questions you provided for people's food consumption. In addition bio folks ask what happens to the food once its inside the microbe, trying to understand the myriad biochemical pathways that take place. As far as I know we have only scratched the surface with microbes which are extremely complex systems. But no matter how complex microbes are they are infinitely simpler than people and their societies.

As you said I can name a long list of things that are common to all people. It all has to do with things they have in common with other animals. I always figured anthropology studied stuff that was less reducible but I assumed they would reduce aspects if they could. It seemed to me that Diamond went after just such a piece of the total anthropology puzzle.

My last issue is when you say that not everyone eats just because some "claim" they don't and others partake in a restricted calorie diet, that just sounds silly to me. Call me tied to materialism but thats the way I see it.

I'll check your book list for a highly rated anthropology book. Sorry to be argumentative but its the way I am. I'm sure you would be better qualified to explain why I am that way. :)

Actually Aaron you are wasting your time trying to school me on science's way of doing things, I have a Biology degree AND an Anthropology degree. ;)

And for your assertion we can describe people with what they have in common with animals, nice for biology, useless for anthropology.

I don't know, Molly. It seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong), you're another of that type of people who try to draw a clear-cut distinction between human and animals. I hope you are aware that as we know more and more about ourselves, it becomes clear that it's almost useless to try and explain ourselves without understanding our own biology.

I think what Diamond was trying to explain in this book is how the Europeans can conquer other peoples. It was for a long time thought that Europeans could do this because they were genetically superior than 'the backward races'. He was trying to refute such claims.

And I'm sorry but I found you're a bit too arrogant when you say that only less uneducated and unwarned poeple will think this book as a fact. It does contain facts as found and understood from research by many scientists, and Diamond tried to weave all them into a hypothesis that can explain why the societies that he mentioned in his book led different fates in general. He was not trying to sweep all in one stroke.

So the Royal Society was also not educated enough, they chose this book as an award-winner...

PS I also have a biology degree, but I have to say that my only academic brush with anthropology is with physical anthropology, not cultural anthropology.

Well you're wrong about what I think about animals and people. Also you seem to be wrong about what I am trying to say. I said this book is sorely lacking in Anthropological training, has a suspect and narrow theoretical basis, and is good for people highly trained such as the Royal Society, and NOT for general readers, and certainly not for biologists and chemists who take umbrage at the idea a fellow hard scientist could be wrong, dear lord, about the soft sciences.

When I need a peer review about Biology, I will eagerly ask one of you, Tyas.

I've read The Third Chimpanzee by him and as an avid science reader and a fairly smart person, i dont see how you refute a valid idea with good support and research just bc the author had no "official" anthropology degree. By the same token more than half the genius scientists and artists should be smirked at bc they did not necessarily have a degree either.
On another note, even though human beings are probably more sophisticated due to their intelligence and the changes this intelligence brought into our lives, we share an enormous amount of genetic heritage with animals and tbh, as ego bruising as this might sound, for an overwhwlming majority of the population, the basic desires, fears and motivations are exactly the same. We just use more complicated ways to get there.
Nobody might agree with every idea in it, but that doesnt make it poor science. Anthropolgy is not a clear cut science like math or chemistry, yes, but for the same token, a likely, simple, supported and logical idea should not be pushed asidd due to lack of proof.

Did you read the review?? I refute the book because it is an exercise in uni-theoretical surmise, which touts itself as the Defining Reason Civilization Turned Out as It Did. It has nothing to do with not having an Anthropology degree and everything to do with not having any education in the field, and that he focuses on one of the many, many theories of human behavior and decides that's it, we've found the reason people do what they do, which as a hard scientist he should know is nonsense.

It's been a while since I read this, but I recall a great many instances where specific findings were presented to support Diamond's framework for human development. One such example is evidence of the rapid spread of nutritious crops East-West across Eurasia as compared to the much slower spread of crops North-South across climactic domains in the Americas. Additionally, no amount of extraneous factors (other than the magical appearance of Whole Foods) could have changed the limited natural assortment of crops suitable for selective breeding in the Americas, which contrasts strongly with the situation in Eurasia. This factor is a very strong constraint on the agricultural productivity of people in the Americas, which has implications for population density, etc., etc., which Diamond clumsily explains in his tome (I found the writing quite horrid in places).

Now, I'm by no means an Anthro-buff, but many of his arguments didn't seem very shocking or daring to me; rather they often seemed almost self-evident. Perhaps he cherry-picked data to build up his theory, or misrepresented his sources, or committed any number of sins not evident to a layperson; one thing he does not seem to do is avoid citing evidence and case studies enforcing his assertions.


Finally, I should point out that in the edition I have, Diamond stresses the limitations of his framework in cases such as China and admits it is notably deficient in explaining its history over the last millennium. This appendix was likely added in response to critiques such as yours questioning the universality of his explanation. In any case, I was never fooled into thinking he was presenting the last and final word on the subject rather than merely a compelling general (but not exclusive) theory of human development.

Not sure I can agree with you Molly, I have an Anthropology Phd and a history major, and while I'm only 1/4 of the way through this book, so far I'm not finding much wrong with it.

By the way, looking at your interests, you and I have a lot of overlap in interests.

Am now 1/2 way through the book, still not having major problems with his approach. In the technology section he gets into issues of cultural rejection with are parallel to some of the food issues you raised (which he neglects but I don't think that was his point... the fact that middle eastern cultures ultimately made pork a food taboo does not negate its presence in the archeological record as having been a food source --- that and the fact that bible says 'don't eat it' is a sure sine that people were'...)

Molly, I can't shake the suspicion that many anthropologists, perhaps including yourself, are averse to ANY attempt to explain culture. Instead they (you?) insist that culture is so SO complex that we should not even bother trying to isolate specific variables that systematically influence the development of cultural practices. Indeed, Frank Boas' student Alfred Kroeber, along with many other social theories,explicitly claimed that culture can only be explained in cultural terms. That's a completely indefensible, anti-scientific view. How do you respond to that?

Very thoughtful review, even though I very much liked the book.

I'll have to reread this and discuss it more, since this is my most hotly contested review. And Ianw19, no I think culture is completely explainable. Perhaps some think culture may be inexplicable because they expect humans to be rational and intelligent. I do not.

I think, though you are miscontstruing efforts to rid the Anthropologist from bias and ethnocentrism, not that Kroeber thought culture was too complex to understand. Culture cannot be defined from without if you wish to UNDERSTAND, not simply explain the reasons for, culture. If you get my meaning. I just worked three 12 hour days, so I'm not quite up for a deeper discussion right this second.

I have always wanted to read this book and now that I have it in my reading queue I will keep in mind your warning. Thanks for the tip

I don't think Diamond anywhere claims that he explains "everything". He is specifically addressing the question as to why Eurasian peoples have come to dominate the world. There are a million other questions you can ask about which Diamond's theory is silent.
The question asked here is so broad that a simple answer might very much be possible. The more locally you examine events, in space and in time, the more complex they they look. But questions addressing a issues on a large scale often have simple solutions, because order and simplicity emerge out of the statistical regularity displayed by large systems in broad sweeps of time. You are confusing a "big" question with a "complex" question. The cause of the rise of Nazism is a complex question, and one should suspect any simple theory that explains it away. But the question asked by diamond is a "big" question, which may actually have a simple rather than complex answer, simply because of its "bigness".

Seriously, you think the Rise of Naziism is complex yet the entire span of human history and domination of cultures isn't??

The very "bigness" of the question lets you know one simple theory cannot encompass it. Big things usually ARE complex. Even McDonald's effect on world culture is complex and cannot be explained away with only one theory, and that's just a fast food company.

McDonalds' effect is a small question targeting a single entity bound in time (also partly in space), and therefore the question is complex. There is no easy answer.

As I said, in a system covering extremely huge swathes of time and space, the fluctuation of lots of factors may cancel out leaving a single (or just a few) relatively constant factor(s) as the explanation of the long-time trend. This is well-known to researches in the physical and biological sciences, and I think it could also be true (though not necessarily so) in large enough man-made systems over broad sweeps of time.

Having a Biology degree I do not agree, and my Anthropology degree tells me you are off base. I've never heard a single professor tell me evolution is simple, and the reaction of man to his environment is never simple. If it were, Anthropology, Sociology and Psychology would be Sciences, not arts. The complexity of what a man has done in one day mirrors the complexity of what man has done in 1,000 years. the "fluctuation" of factors ADDS to the complexity of culture, things don't just magically cancel themselves out.

I think you are seeking simple answers because you see history and length as homeostatic. It is not that simple. There's no Occam's Razor.

There is no "magic" in fluctuations cancelling themselves out. It would be extraordinary if a large number of independent fluctuations DIDN'T cancel themselves out. Sum of a lot of independent fluctuations do tend to cancel out; look up "the stability of the mean", which is an elementary theorem in statistics.

There are conditions under which this might fail, and human history may allow for such conditions; but it requires a more concrete argument to establish that. Vague phrases like "complexity of culture", "homeostasis" etc. don't help, they just add to the anti-intellectualist mystique that has become fashionable in the humanities.

I have no idea what you are saying. You have no proof anything "cancels out" in human culture. Culture isn't an election, where Dems and Repub votes "cancel out" each other. Culture isn't a wave either. It is nothing scientifically quantifiable as yet, or as I already said, these arts would be sciences.

As for statistics I have never heard of "stability of the mean", maybe they didn't teach it in the two courses I took. Even if I did, statistics is not a reliable way to quantify human culture. They deal with simple studies effectively if properly dealt with.

I think you're one of those people who read Heinlein and got charmed with the idea that you can write an equation that properly predicts fluctuations in women's skirt length, men's beard length and the price of gold.

Look at it this way. Culture is a stew. Adding salt then sugar doesn't "cancel out". It has subtler effects than that. Salt and sugar can coexist, or in varying amounts strengthen the flavor of the other. Culture isn't math.

And I never met a single "anti-intellectual" except online. Never at my university. And BTW YOU are claiming culture is homeostatic, so you ought not to dismiss it as "vague". ;)

wow, your review doesn't make any sense. Diamond takes a complex multidisciplinary approach to explain a variety of factors influencing human development throughout prehistory and history. Yes, the materialist explanation play an important role in parts of the book, but entire chapters describing how technological progress and building biological resistance were inhibited due to geographic factors do not even come close utilising anthropological explanations. In fact, once he moves out of prehistory the book becomes more or less straight history in its methodology. Yes, there is a lot of speculation and more proof would be nice for most of his claims, but it's a work of popular science, not hardcore academia.

Do not let your discipline limit your perception.

I don't get how I am not supposed to let my area of education NOT influence how I review a book written about Anthropology. Not gonna be possible. ;) Also while I dispute the "science" part of your description of the book as popular science, I agree, it's a book aimed at being sexy and making Diamond look Ubersmart. It was that year's coffee table book.

i believe people are missing the real point of this. the book was not made to make jared diamond look ubersmart.

Molly, you're not the first anthropologist I've heard this from. Sociologists, too. And it makes sense, suppose: Diamond gets a little carried away, doesn't he, with the deterministic authorities he describes? I can sympathize with a scientist whose field of study is rooted in culture and comparative analysis who feels somewhat diminished by Diamond's scheme.

Still, I think you've got it mostly wrong. As a critic, I mean -- not as an anthropologist. I think his approach manages here to synthesize a great breadth of knowledge into a series of hard and related points, and to build from those points something like a great idea. The idea may be explored more rigorously elsewhere and earlier, and it may be presented here with some unlikely appendages attached, but mostly I think he gets it right. The bigness of it, I mean: that some form of material determinism can deliver interpretations of history with awesome explanatory powers.

You don't have to be an anthropologist to appreciate this book or to learn from it. Shoot, maybe you can't be. But I doubt that.