So what does /his/ have against this book aside from; muh zebra's?

Jewish supremacist (whites are successful because they lived in Europe, but jews are successful because they're geneticaly superior) geologists tries to use geology to explain a subject he hasn't properly studied, while disregarding biological, cultural and all sorts of other differences between human populations.

>Jared Diamond shilling his garbage again
fuck off jared

>>2169288
Jared is a biologist and a physiologist, not a geologist. He understand genetics far better than most of /his/.

this thread is going to be utter shit
>>2169307
>implying >>2169288 is from /his/

>appeal to authority

Jared
https://archive.org/stream/fp_Jared_Diamond-Guns_Germs_and_Steel/Jared_Diamond-Guns_Germs_and_Steel_djvu.txt

>In case this question immediately makes you shudder at the thought that you are about to read a racist treatise, you aren't: as you will see, the answers to the question don't involve human racial differences at all.

>in mental ability New Guineans are probably genetically superior to Westerners

This is a good book to troll your academic friends.

>>2169319
He goes on about if we were to take an evolutionary perspective, the environment in which New Guineans live would probably be much dangerous for dumb people than would Europe, where the leading cause of death for centuries was infectious diseases, to which resistance is mostly a matter of body chemistry than making good decisions. And in our sheltered current state the stupid aren't being weeded out by nature either.

>>2169344
Well I typically read academic papers and primary sources. Some anon posted a big library and this book was in it, decided to give it a try. I went into it expected all kinds of bogus like /his/ said it would but I didn't actually come across it.

>>2169288
Source?

>>2169216
>entertaining
I didn't know that was the goal of academia these days.

>very broad stroke way of dealing with the subject
Against just about every single anthrohistorical treatment of the subjects he deals with. This allows curation of incident studies and mitigation of situations which undermine his thesis.

>ahead
>"progress"
>teleology
No.

>rather it I think it simplifies a lot
That's exactly the issue.

>>2169350
Now apply the same standards of proof you would towards /pol/'s speculation towards that bit of speculation. If you care about science at all you will see why it is not only insufficient but hypocritical on Jared's part.

>>2169442
It's bogus by omission or misinterpretation on Diamond's part. It's a classic case of having already a conclusion in mind and writing a book in order to prove it by only including the evidence that supports it, deliberately misinterpreting the vague evidence, and ignoring any contradictory evidence.
A well known example is he zebra thing and domesticated animals in Africa.
He asserts that Afrcans couldn't domesticate wild animals based on how hard it is to tame a wild animal like the Zebra while ignoring facts such as that taming and domesticating are very different things, that humans all over the world had managed to domesticate wild and dangerous animals like boars, cows, wolfs etc. and that prehistoric horses were incredibly similar to zebras, both in appearance and temperament. Weather it's through ignorance (unlikely considering his educations) or deliberate omission, it says a lot about his motivation for writing this book and purpose for it.

>>2169448
/pol/

>>2169478
/pol/ speculation: he is a geologist
me: that's factually incorrect

/pol/ speculation I found the other day: europeans are smarter because they lived in colder and thus harsher environments, therefore they were selected for smarts
me: shouldn't we expect Inuit to be smarter than Europeans?
/pol/ speculation: you say that because you are a cuck

/pol/ speculation: neanderthals were smarter than sapiens that's why eurasians are smarter than africans
me: there is neanderthal admixture spread throughout Africa, and higher admixture doesn't cause technological prowess (see Khoisan hunter-gatherers)

I didn't even argue for Jared's position, I just explained a bit of it and compared his credentials with someone who attacked his character (called him a jewish supremacist) and also his credentials (called him a geologist, implied he is less fit to ponder biological differences between human populations because of that ficticious tidbit).

>>2169489
>It's a classic case of having already a conclusion in mind and writing a book in order to prove it

Not to go against what you say but isn't that what everyone does, from academics to judges? Only those with integrity will alter their original hypotheses if the evidence they find goes against their old one.

It's a good book with a pretty decent theory.

Faggots here are mad they couldn't articulate and write a book about such a simple idea.

>>2169489
>He asserts that Afrcans couldn't domesticate wild animals based on how hard it is to tame a wild animal like the Zebra while ignoring facts such as that taming and domesticating are very different things, that humans all over the world had managed to domesticate wild and dangerous animals like boars, cows, wolfs etc. and that prehistoric horses were incredibly similar to zebras, both in appearance and temperament. Weather it's through ignorance (unlikely considering his educations) or deliberate omission, it says a lot about his motivation for writing this book and purpose for it.
He distinguishes taming from domestication. He only mentions 4 main reasons though: nastiness, diet, growth rate and how easy it is to breed the critter in captivity. He even goes on about how it's relatively easy to tame cheetahs and elephants but breeding them in captivity is super-hard, so there animals remain pretty much non-domesticated though they can still be awesome pets to show off.

>>2169577
Nevermind me saying there only 4 reasons in the book. I took refresher that I should have taken before. He does expand a grand deal more on the subject, it's even better than I remember.