Jump to content

Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RockKnocker (talk | contribs) at 16:29, 6 February 2013 (Threaded discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured article candidateGuns, Germs, and Steel is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 5, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
November 7, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Sid Meier's "Civilization"

Just lurking, and surprised that Sid Meier's 1991 Video Game "Civilization" is nowhere mentioned given its clear position as background not so much to the more specific ideas than to the general ambition and reception of Diamond's book. 188.155.139.175 (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American progress

I seem to recall the picture of "American Progress" by John Gast being either in the cover of some edition or discussed in the book. Should it be included in the article? --84.20.17.84 10:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey...Drastic pruning warning

This article seems to be getting seriously out of hand (as so many articles that generate controversy do). This article is about a book and its ideas. It is not about all the arguments and nit-picking over terminology that have arisen from people taking offence at the book's thesis. These should be summarised briefly and clearly at the end. The article has become too flabby and tedious to interest a casual reader:-

  • the section about James Blaut is longer than any other! It has no paragraphs! It has been written by someone who has been unable to control his/her own feelings to the extent that other editors have interspersed refutations in the middle - it is horrible! To the author: fix it up or I shall remove all but 2 or 3 lines.
  • There are a series of sections dealing with criticisms and counter-criticisms, many of which are highly specific and strike the reader as arguments over facts, not over ideas. This is way too long. Most of it belongs in an article on its own - perhaps on Eurocentrism.--AssegaiAli 10:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there are almost no citations here! god people do something! Also, don't say if you dont like it change it yourself, as i am a wiki n00b, and would probly end up distroying everythang if i tryed Thedudewithglasses 07:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sympathetic to Blaut's criticism, but this section needs reworked. The above is right, its way to long. Blaut's key criticisms could be summarized in three bullet points. I'll do it if I can ever finish my damn dissertation on sumpweed201.207.97.7 03:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No response to my suggestions last month - so I have made some changes. Criticisms are now shorter and more pointed and divided into specific sections that I hope convey the thrust of the controversy as simply as possible. Would anyone like to volunteer to do the same with the responses to criticisms? --AssegaiAli 23:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wondering whats wrong with the Blaut section. While I might not agree with much of what says Blaut, thinking that Diamond addresses many of his concerns, he is still entitled to his opinion. What does bother me is stating that environmental determinism is "discredited", such a statement needs attribution.--OMCV (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was wondering about the same. Pergamino (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bantu and SA

This is listed as a controversial claim in the article:

In chapter 19 (How Africa Became Black) he speculates that if the Dutch had arrived in South Africa after the Bantu they would have been unable to establish themselves in Cape Town, and says that since both sets of invaders displaced the Khoisan people the Dutch claim of prior occupation (although true) "needn't be taken seriously".

First: "he speculates that if the Dutch had arrived in South Africa after the Bantu"

This makes it sound like it was a matter of timing, which is not what the author claims. Diamond notes that the Bantu were already near the Cape of Good Hope, but had stopped expanding because the climate there was such that the Bantu agriculture and crops were not suitable for the area. Is was however suitable for crops the Dutch brought.

Second: I'm not sure what is actually controversial here. That needs to be clarified. A more complete quote is:

"once South African whites had quickly killed or infected or driven off the Cape's Khoisan population, whites could claim correctly that they had occupied the Cape [of Good Hope] before the Bantu and thus had prior rights to it. That claim needn't be taken seriously, since the prior rights of the Cape Khoisan didn't inhibit the whites from dispossessing them."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.74.92 (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2007

Tone problems?

I'm a newer user, so I'll refrain from just jumping in with edits, but this line in particular:

This speaks to a larger issue of illogical attacks on Western/European civilization by people who are themselves products of that civilization, and in fact never could've made those same attacks without the benefits they enjoy as members of that civilization.

...seems to be entirely political in nature and not helpful with the encyclopedia nature of the article. Should the paragraph be removed/reworded? Mike Wolfe 15:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — goethean 15:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GG&S argues that genetic superiority in disease resistance was a factor in Eurasian conquests.

Our summary has it that Diamond wants to refute the belief that:

Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual, genetic or moral superiority

This surely can't be true and the article's 'Germs' section neatly explains why...

European people had acquired immunity through natural selection

That is, cities had coevolved pandemic diseases and people genetically fitter at surviving them (than hunter gatherers).

Since one third of the title is dedicated to the thesis that a pillar of hegenomy was genetic superiority, we probably shouldn't say that the book refutes this.

--Wragge 21:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book does not suggest that natural selection for certain immunities implies genetic superiority. Consider a hot sunny day: a person of Kenyan descent tells a person of Swedish descent that dark skin is a sign of genetic superiority because it protects the skin from the sun's radiation. But Swedes did not evolve in a climate with lots of exposure to a hot sun, and so their skin pigments eventually faded. On a chilly winter day, the Swede could argue the other way, saying light skin is a sign of genetic superiority because they are better able to produce vitamin D, especially in poor sunlight. Kenyans, however, did not evolve in a relatively sunless climate, and so their skin pigmentation is strong. Europeans were exposed to some microbes, and other cultures were exposed to different microbes. − Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 06:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That's a speedy reply to my point, but I'm not completely sure where the disagreement is. The Blue Whale is better adapted than the Eurasian to the deep ocean; synonymously: whales are genetically fitter (or superior) for survival in that environment. African genes are clearly superior to Eurasian for sun stroke resistance (in the example above). 'Wiktionary:Superior' isn't a magic word, it just means 'better'. Especially in the context of evolution it doesn't make sense to compare genes in the abstract: 'genetic quality' is determined in the context of a given environment. (Fitness (biology) has the corrolary: "As phenotype is affected by both genes and environment, the fitnesses of different individuals with the same genotype are not necessarily equal, but depend on the environment in which the individuals live.")

I repeat my assertion that a central plank of this book's theory is that Europeans had evolved both more virulent diseases and (genetically inherited) resistance to them. I assume that Twas Now agrees with that, and that this debate is over the semantics of 'superiority'. It seems (to me) that Twas Now has given two examples of 'relative superiority' in the 'rebuttal' above (effectively agreeing with me).

After rereading the 'lethal gift of livestock' chapter, I find that Diamond has avoided using any terms like 'genetic superiority' or anywhere directly mentioning comparative genetics. However, page 210 (of my '97 edition) calls Spanish smallpox resistance a 'decisive advantage' over the Aztecs, and the rest of the chapter describes this as being an evolved resistance.

What am I missing? Please explain how genes giving increased immunity aren't superior to those which don't. Also, if that really isn't 'superior' then the term 'genetic superiority' seems inherently meaningless/confusing & should still be removed (as nothing then can ever be genetically superior to anything else).

--Wragge 14:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't what happened when the Europeans arrived that the environment (specifically the microbiological environment) changed to one to which the immune systems of the Europeans were more suited? — goethean 16:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, this is all neither here nor there because to add this content to the article, you've got to cite it to a reliable source. — goethean 16:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Where's all this "genetic superiority" material coming from? The introduction says that observed differences were not considered due to any genetic superiority of Europeans. Indeed, resistance to disease is not a matter of genetics so much as of a healthy immune system containing appropriate antibodies. I concur with Goethean on this: reliable sources will need to be found before we consider any non-negative use of such a loaded phrase as "genetic superiority". Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 17:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Superiority" has connotations of intelligence or better ability, which is likely why Diamond avoided it. Simply referring to disease resistance is more precise anyway. Of course disease resistance could be described as "superior" rather than inferior or neutral, but it is not the best choice of words, and tends to bring up an irrelevant and loaded issue.

The sentence in the introduction should be rephrased, unless possibly if it a direct quote from Diamond. --JWB 20:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond argues for genetic superiority in the prologue (page 20)

SheffieldSteel asks above where "all this genetic superiority material is coming from?" - in a way, that was my question initially, since our introduction argues that Diamond denies it. In fact, he celebrates it. Right in the prologue he writes:

From the very beginning of my work with the New Guineans they impressed me as being on the average more intelligent [...] than the average European.

On the following page (21) he explains why he think this is...

Most Europeans who escaped fatal infections also escaped other potential causes of death and proceeded to pass on these genes. [...] traditional New Guineans suffered high mortality from murder, chronic tribal warfare, accidents and problems in procuring food. Intelligent people are likelier than less intelligent ones to escape those causes of high mortality in traditional New Guinea societies. However the differential mortality from epidemic diseases in traditional European societies has little to do with intelligence, and instead involved genetic resistance [...] natural selection promoting genes for intelligence has probably been far more ruthless in New Guinea than in more densely populated, politically complex societies, where natural selection for body chemistry was instead more potent. Besides this genetic reason [...]

To be honest, I re-read the entire book before coming back to the Prologue to find the clear statement I remembered. I did that partly because I was a stupid European, but mostly because I assumed people who contribute to the talk page would have read the book, at least to page 21. As far as I can see, this is a very central point in Diamond's these (he puts it in the title) and it isn't controversial to say that. Admittedly, throughout the rest of the book he doesn't spell out the genetic component this clearly, but it underlies the entire 'germs' argument (examples I mention above). --Wragge 12:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me that Diamond is arguing that anyone is genetically superior. The evolutionary pressures in the New Guineans' environment would favour someone of higher intelligence; by contrast the evolutionary pressures likely faced by Europeans over the same time frame would be in the direction of disease resistance. So, it's not clear where "genetic superiority" lies, if anywhere, in this situation. Diamond does explicitly deny that European success is due to genetic superiority; nowhere does he explicitly attribute anything to it.
It's also rather a loaded phrase, since historically it's been used by white supremacy groups. It would be a gross misrepresentation of Diamond's position (and yes, I've read the book) to associate him with such views. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 12:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Diamond wouldn't (and doesn't) write "genetically superior" - it's Wikipedia that's doing this: That's what I'm objecting too: it's misleading (and possibly disingenous). I'm saying that we should take that out.
I dispute that Diamond doesn't explicity attribute anything to it, unless you want him to include the word "genetic" in every sentence about disease resistance before you'll accept that he's making this (obvious) point. The entire logic of differential genetic tolerance for infection diseases is very explicitly that dense Eurasian cities (near livestock) bred disease resistant people. I've offered two direct examples of this (one in the the very paragraph I've given above, and one in the previous section) where no counter-citations or refutations are given.
All I'm suggesting is (at a minimum) the removal of the phrase "no genetic superiority". It seems clear that there is (at least) concencus that Diamond argues for genetic differences, and hence a variety of genetic superiorities.
--Wragge 13:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Diamond points out that dense populations in very close contact with many animal species caused diseases in humans. After this went on for many, many generations, people in those populations with some immunity to disease fared better than people without any immunity, and left more offspring. Later, when some of these people brought some of these animals with them to new lands, the people already living in these places fell victim to said diseases.
This is a proximate cause - a passing epiphenomenon set in motion by other things that were already happening. The buck doesn't stop here. Why did some people have the time to build up any sort of immunity ( be it genetic, or behavioral ) while others didn't?
Note also that disease is used in GG&S to explain why Europeans failed to colonize places like New Guinnea, where diseases to which they were not immune stoped them in their tracks. It's not that Europeans were "superior" ( bleeding over from "better suited" sense to "morally or inherently better" ) for their resistance to small pox. It's that small pox itself played a larger role in the last 13,000 years of history than, say, SARS. And Eurasians happened to already have encountered the pox.
This is from someone who didn't stop reading at page 21. 70.91.201.209 (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, isn't immunity cultural, not genetic? Cultural in the microbiological sense, that is. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(PS: About 'not reading the book' - that joke was too good to resist (the genetics is on page 21!) and I took some of the earlier comments a bit personally; of course, I assume good faith, and that we're all very familiar with the text & have differing interpretations. --Wragge 13:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
--Wragge 13:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not genetics on page 21. There's nothing about As, Cs, Gs, or Ts. Just a highly speculative story about differing selective pressures in different parts of the world. 70.91.201.209 (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to take another look at my copy of the book before commenting further on this. I'm sure we can agree on some form of words that fits policy. Don't worry about the WP:AGF thing. We're on the same side. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 19:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the last paragraph on p21:

Compare this with the article's lead, which states that the book refutes the belief that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian genetic superiority. The book and the lead are quite consistent with one another. One could argue that Diamond is being illogical or inconsistent because disease resistance constitutes genetic superiority, but such a statement runs the risk of being original research (or possibly synthesis, depending on how it's worded). That is, unless a notable critic has made that point. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 22:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We agree there are genetic differences: the problematic word is: any

I agree that we've produced (separate) quotations which say that (obviously) Yali's people have no disadvantage in intellectual genes compared with Eurasians, but that's not what our lead says. Our lead says that Eurasians had no genetic advantage of any kind. That is significantly inconsistent with the book.

Consider our present wording: "Eurasian intellectual, genetic or moral superiority". These three (intellectual, genetic, and moral) are presented as separate qualities, so the lead reads:

Eurasian hegemony is [not] due to any form of Eurasian [...] genetic [...] superiority

Quotes I've cited above (from page 20 & Chapter 11) establish that our lead is the exact opposite of what the book says: We are saying that Eurasian hegemony wasn't caused by genetic differences, where Diamond's "Germ" thesis is that they were.

It is this statement which constitutes original research, as all Diamond writes is that:

in mental ability New Guineans are probably genetically superior to Westerners

You may feel that the reader will infer "intellectual genetic superiority" where the lead says "genetic superiority". However, this is a synthesis at best, and confusing to the average article reader (who won't have studied the book). That reader might be given the (incorrect) impression that Eurasian genetic disease resistance isn't essential to the "Germs" part of Diamond's theory.

I don't want to be bold and change this, though it's a small and important edit, since it's also certain to be contencious. I suggest the following rewording:

while refuting the belief that Eurasian hegemony is due to any genetic superiority in mental ability.

I favour this wording because:

  • A) it's closer to the phrase used above in the book ("mental ability") and because
  • B) the "moral superiority" claim we were making isn't really addressed in the book (the GG&S chapter on the social organizations that form around societies of various sizes can be read either way). I don't remember a specifically "moral" comparison anywhere in the book. If somebody feels this is an element of GG&S, then the "moral" part could be re-inserted, (with a citation).

We could add a footnote reference to the quote that Sheffield Steel gives above to this rewritten sentence. What do you think? --Wragge 18:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC):[reply]

I suggest we change 'no genetic superiority' to 'some genetic difference'

Since Diamond gives a (fairly convincing) argument that the average inhabitant of the New World would have been smarter but less disease-resistant than her Old World counterpart (at first contact) for genetic (as well as environmental) reasons, the wording we want might be something like: "Genetic Differences". It's certainly a good idea to dispassionately avoid words like superiority and inferiority.

Whatever new formulation is adopted, it's completely dishonest for the article to say that Diamond argues against "Genetic Superiority", that phrase must be removed. --Wragge 12:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- Criticism/Political Factors

>In fact, Diamond specifically cites the evolution of complex socio-political structures as a yield >of the increased resources and environment which was being experienced by western europeans.

Doesn't make sense. I'm not an expert on this book but how about:

In fact, Diamond specifically states that the increased resources experienced by western Europeans yielded the evolution of complex socio-political structures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gene Thomas (talkcontribs) 07:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Genetic Superiority" resolution

Frankly, the entire preceding fussiness over "genetic superiority" seems like self-indulgent hairsplitting to me, but it is accurate that Diamond makes reference to geographically-dependent cultural and genetic differences (Eurasian disease resistance, the Chinese forsaking the seas, etc) in the later parts of the book, and the article should acknowledge this. I've tried to do so in a way that is as brief as possible and keeps the focus on these differences all being dependent effects of geographic differences, so that geography is the ultimate determinant (and not any inherent superiority of European stock), as is Diamond's actual argument. Hopefully we can put this whole thing behind us now. JSoules (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Diamond made a racist comment saying that New Guineans are probably on average more intelligent than Europeans and then hypothesizes that the high murder rate would lead to natural selection for intelligence. It's an arguement I don't really understand (are stupid people being murdered? are smart people killing them? are smart people avoiding the situation all together? isn't propensity to violence a cultural and personality trait? Does the fact that people of low intelligence are more prone to violence in modern society mean that the same would be true of tribal societies? - I'm asking this out of interest, not for the article).

In any event, blatant racism in any modern book is notable, particularly when it seems to be clearly bias with such a weak supporting argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.183.78 (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond does refer to geographically-dependent cultural and genetic differences. But to call that "blatant racism" is ridiculous. No-one would bat an eyelid if he'd made a similar comparison about 2 breeds of dog. There are proven inter-racial genetic differences, e.g.: negroes have adaptations for dealing with extreme heat while Eskimos have adaptations for dealing with extreme cold; dark skin is the original human trait and N. Europeans developed very fair skin to avoid vitamin D deficiency in their less sunny climate.
Diamond is arguing against the common assumption of West-European-based cultures (and probably earlier dominant cultures) that they have genetic advantages in intelligence and / or industriousness and / or social behaviour and therefore have a right to rule the world (see for example Lord Salisbury's 1886 speech against Irish home Rule.-- Philcha (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not 'ridiculous' to call an weak ad hoc argument to say New Guineans are more intelligent blatant racism.

You use the example that nobody would bat an eyelid if he'd made a similar comparison between two breeds of dog. True, but to say a fighting dog is more intelligent than a cattle dog, because less intelligent fighting dogs are more likely to die in fights would still strike me as a strange argument. Also species of dog are generally not accepted as a good proxy for race.

Maybe that's because all breeds of dogs are a single species? That's not splitting hairs - it's what happens when people guess ( in an "encyclopedia" no less ) at things they don't understand, and then assert their hunches as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.201.209 (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

/* Also, by your own counter example it's impossible to be racist - you say differences are proven, give an example and seemingly then accept any argument about racial differences without any proof. Think about it. */

You go on to say that there are "proven" differences between geographically-dependent culture and genetics. This may be the case, but higher intelligence among New Guineans is not at all proven. So this is why the statement is blatant racism, it's not "proven" and it's evidence is Diamond's prejudiced observations and justification a weak hypothesis.

We are well aware that Diamond is explaining why Europeans make more "cargo" than New Guineans. However, Diamond's rebuttal is itself is both racist and pseudo scientific.

The other sin of Mr Diamond, I've just remembered, is that in discussing the hypothesis that you mention (some cultures dominate others through higher genetic intellectual abilities) is that he says such suggestions are "loathsome" and uses this to reject the argument. This is an example of the moralistic fallacy, and is further undermined by this racist argument we are now discussing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.183.78 (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution and Context

It is (pardon the emphasis) RIDICULOUS to suggest that noting evolutionary selection for certain skills amounts to an argument for genetic superiority. In one instance you have Diamond's objective recapping of a process, and in the other you have a term fraught with connotations of Eurocentrism. It is a disingenuous way for his detractors to find faults where there are none.

Also (and related), central to his discussion of the evolutionary selection is the notion of "context." Where he explains that Europeans would observe the inability of New Guineans to function in European civilization and assume this denoted a lack of intelligence, but modern Europeans (and their descendants) couldn't possibly function in New Guinean civilization. In New Guinea, it is Europeans who "lack intelligence."

This is like any of the other critiques leveled at Diamond's book. These critiques are (all of them) indicative of someone who did not read the book in its entirety, OR does not understand how scientific knowledge acummulates, OR has an axe to grind.

Rafajs77 (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I'm the only one concerned with our claim of 'no genetic... superiority', so the argumentum ad hominem above must be directed at me. Let me repeat that I'm not a Diamond detractor, my objection is only to the Wikipedia article; I still think that our article hides one-third of his argument by implying that New-Worlders were not at a genetic disadvantage in disease resistance against Old-Wolders. Diamond specifically writes (many times, especially in the introduction) that they were.
Although I seem to have persuaded no-one, I'm honestly surprised that anyone would find it RIDICULOUS to object that Wikipedia has summarized 'Genetic selection for disease resistance rather than intelligence' as 'no genetic superiority' of the Europeans. I agree that these are all loaded phrases, but I think this explicit discussion is one of the book's most interesting parts, so I'm surprised that nobody else finds it worthy of mention (to the point that it is effectively concealed by our claim that genetic superiority had no part to play in the speed of Old World conquest - the exact antithesis of Diamond's 'Germs' explanation).
Of course, my lone objection isn't concencus so this has been dormant until the above attack, which seems unwarranted, and missed the idea that we're discussing the article and not the book.
--Wragge (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


So you're saying that the fact that Europeans have been developing science, math, philosophy, literature, politics, etc for centuries... while Africans and Native Americans society revolved around hunting, has nothing to do with selective evolution? It's extremely politically incorrect, but that doesn't make it any less true. I suggest for everyone to read these two reviews of the book: http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/ml_ggs.html http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/jpr_ggs.html

guns, germs, and steel.

  1. REDIRECT

Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies is a 1997 book by Jared Diamond, professor of geography and physiology at UCLA and graduate of The Roxbury Latin School. In 1998 it won a Pulitzer Prize and the Aventis Prize for Best Science Book. A documentary based on the book was broadcast on PBS in July 2005, produced by the National Geographic Society.

According to the author, an alternative title would be A short history about everyone for the last 13,000 years.[1] But the book is not merely an account of the past; it attempts to explain why Eurasian civilizations, as a whole, have survived and conquered others, while refuting the belief that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual, genetic or moral superiority. Diamond argues that the gaps in power and technology between human societies do not reflect cultural or racial differences, but rather originate in environmental differences powerfully amplified by various positive feedback loops. He also, most explicitly in the epilogue, argues that societies with food surpluses and high-to-moderate degrees of interaction with outsiders are more likely to encourage great people to realize their full potential and to adopt new inventions.

A major theme in the book is a fundamental difference between Eurasia and other landmasses being their main directional axes: Eurasia, comprised of Europe and Asia together (with north Africa often included as well by the author), is laid primarily over the west-east axis, while both the North America - South America landmass and Africa have north-south as the main axis. This, together with Eurasia's large area, results in much wider continuous ecological areas in Eurasia compared to other landmasses (see the Mediterranean climate areas for example). Therefore domesticated plants and animals and technology spread much faster in ancient times inside Eurasia compared to other landmasses.

Determinism

Needs a correct description of a determinist critique. The Timothy Taylor critique that was originally in this spot is not a determinist critique, and seems better suited to Eurocentrism. 14 April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.83.121 (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of the summmary

The section "The theory outlined" contains a lot of material that's also in the "Agriculture" and "Germs" section. I've commented out the "Agriculture" and "Germs" sections after incorporating additional material from there into "The theory outlined". The alternative would be to make "The theory outlined" much shorter; but then we'd also need a separate section "Why Europeans became dominant", and there's little more to say about that in a separate section because the book only gives the subject a handful of pages. Philcha (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Taylor

I don't know whether Taylor ever questioned whether Hernán Cortés actually won in his conflict with the Aztecs in the first place or accuses Diamond of "Eurocentrically" assuming that Cortés was the victor because the European culture supplanted the Aztec. The ref given does not mention any of this - "Why Did Human History Evolve Differently on Different Continents for the Last 13,000 Years? (comments)" (HTML). edge.com. 5-12-97. Retrieved 2008-03-14. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Philcha (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the paragraph was not supported by the citation, and sounded weird enough that it really would need to be supported to include in the article. Removed. CAVincent (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Work!

I just would like to say that you guys do a wonderful job of summarizing the book in such short space and I appreciate this very much! Im 14 years old and had to read this book for a school project and I read this before the book. It really gave me a heads up and helped me enjoy the book a little more. Thanks so much for such a good article! Seanpnoot (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added this phrase

It is regards to political systems and the environment. Edit/change it as you see fit. (factors such as centralization of government in order to build irrigation systems in river valley civilizations, which inhibited the development of democracy and political freedom - whereas areas that required no centralized irrigation effort, such as Greece, were politically and culturally fragmented, and were able to develop individuality and democracy) Intranetusa (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reception / Criticism

Dear User:Archaic d00d and User:Pergamino,

I have this page watchlisted as it's a book I'd quite like to read, so I've noticed that you're having a mminor edit war about a heading. First of all, as per WP:BRD I'd suggest we leave the article as it is, so I've reverted it. We should discuss the proposed change (diff) here before we apply it if consensus is reached. In my opinion, "Reception" is broad enough, with positive and negative meanings, to include the subheaders, without another section. But that's my opinion, what does everyone else think? Bigger digger (talk) 10:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense, and is misleading, to have subheadings "Political Factors", "Eurocentrist Determinism" and "Weakness in arguments" under the heading of Reception. It sounds like you are trying to explain the motivation of reviewers rather than criticisms of the book.
For instance talking the "Political Factors" of a reception, sounds like political factors influenced the perception. For instance you could say "Jared Diamond was room mates with a guy who has alot of influence over deciding who gets Pulitzer prizes, so the politics of the Pulitzer price explains that reception. When actually "Political Factors" refers to criticism that Diamond's book does not take into account economic systems and rule of law in how countries develop. It explains a criticism rather than what factors influenced the books reception.
In conclusion, the subheadings explain criticisms, they don't explain how people "recieved" (i.e. liked or not) the book. Archaic d00d (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Good point, although if we do add the heading a bit of re-writing will be required to balance up the reception section. Anyone else? Bigger digger (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that we do need to rewrite much. The reception of the book is that it got generally positive review and won prizes, the crticism doesn't change that. The criticism about the book has to do with the arguments the book made, so if it has to be balanced against anything it's the summary of the book's arguments.Archaic d00d (talk) 03:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that the Reception section will be about 3 lines, which is a bit pathetic for a section. Pergamino seems to have other things to do, so I think we've reached a consensus here, go ahead and make the edit as you see fit. Bigger digger (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies in "criticism" section

The following passage contains several egregious inaccuracies:

He was trying to explain why, for example, in 1492 Eurasia was almost entirely populated by settled societies with governments, literacy, iron technology and standing armies, while the other continents were almost entirely populated by stone age tribes of hunter-gatherers.

The "other continents":

In 1492, Africa was mostly iron-age and contained numerous states and hierarchical Kingdoms (e.g. Mali empire, Benin Empire, Zulu Kingdoms, Great Zimbabwe) and was mostly inhabited by sedentary agriculturalists and sedentary (e.g. khoi-khoi), semi-nomadic and nomadic pastoralists (e.g. Massai), Aside from the Khoi-San Bushmen of the Kalahari and a few Pygmy societies (e.g. Mbuti, Baka, Twa) confined to the densest tropical forests of Central Africa. "Stone-age hunter-gatherers" were largely absent form the African continent at this date. The Americas, too were mostly agricultural, and several Mesoamerican and Andean states (Tarascan, Inca, Moche) worked copper, bronze, silver and gold and numerous alloys) Additionally, there was widedspread literacy Throughout Mesoamerica (Maya, Zapotec, and Mixtec writing systems) and Andean societies used quipu , which may or may not have been a true system of writing. Much of Amazonia was settled by large Chiefdoms practicing a form of agriculture based primarily on Cassava, Sweet Potatoes, Peach Palm and Acai Palm (Santarem, Marajo, Machiparo, Xingu). The Eastern woodlands of North America were agricultural and home to many Mississippian city-states and chiefdoms, while the southwestern areas were peopled by maize-based Pueblo societies who built many towns with stone and adobe architecture (e.g. Taos Pueblo, Mesa verde, Chaco Canyon). In 1491- hunter gatherers in the Americas were confined mostly to Patagonia, marginal areas of the Amazon Rainforest, the Arctic and Sub-arctic, parts of the Great Plains and the Northwest Pacific Coast. The only continent that was mostly settled by Hunter-gatherers in 1492 would have been Australia. In his book, Jared Diamond articulates these facts very clearly. Why this vague and utterly misleading statement about "other continents" was placed in the section of this article dealing with criticism is completely mystifying to me.

64.222.101.12 (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, most of africa was iron age thousands of years before 1492, at a very early age, possibly before Eurasia, that is the debate. Diamond never mentions the Mali empire, Benin empire. He rarily mentions any specific african state or empire. He seems to focus mainly on southern Africa, which seems to fit his theory. He just rambles about Zulu defeat by Afrikaaners under Dingane, who cease using Shaka's military technique. Those Afrikaaners did not dare occupy Zulu land. Not surprising Ceshwayo, Dingane's succesor, revived Shaka military tactics and defeated a far superior force than the Afrikaaners. It is amazing this work of half truths is pimped as science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.24.111 (talk) 08:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

all Sahelian empires(ghana later, mali, songhay, Kanembu) were literate with standing armies, about the same time literacy was spreading throughout eurasia. The spread of Islam in Africa, spread literacy, just like the spread of Christianity in Europe around the same time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.24.111 (talk) 08:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Domestication

From the Origin of Species, a quote that seems relevant:

If it has taken centuries or thousands of years to improve or modify most of our plants up to their present standard of usefulness to man, we can understand how it is that neither Australia, the Cape of Good Hope, nor any other region inhabited by quite uncivilised man, has afforded us a single plant worth culture. It is not that these countries, so rich in species, do not by a strange chance possess the aboriginal stocks of any useful plants, but that the native plants have not been improved by continued selection up to a standard of perfection comparable with that acquired by the plants in countries anciently civilised. --Gargletheape (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is obsolete. Amazonia is one of the last places on earth populated by humans, yet it is one of the most biodiverse (including many species edible or useful to people). Ethnobotanists and archeologists (Denevan, Erickson, Balee) now believe that a great deal of this biodiversity is anthropogenic. Darwin was speculating at a time when we did not have enough data, and he was speculating on places he himself had not done extensive research. He was writing at a time when there had been practically no anthropological research on the "uncivilized" peoples to whom he refers; in the 20th cntury there has been a great deal of research on such groups and how they adapt to, and in the process modify, their natural environment, so we know better now. Better to consider the quote a hypothesis. It turns out to be wrong, but that doesn't diminish the power of Darwinian theory, so this particular mistaken speculation is not really very noteworthy. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, okay. I do think it's worth discussing in the text, including the studies you mention, since the view adopted by Diamond (that several dozen domesticable plant and animal species all happened to be found in some places not others) is a priori pretty weird, as the Darwin quote amply testifies to. --Gargletheape (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is literatureI have not read in a LONG time so I don't feel qualified to add to the article. I know in the Amazon Anna Roosevelt wrote a very accessible book called Parmana in which she argued that pre-Colombian Amazonian peoples cultivated corn in sufficient quantities to support large cities (in the several thousands - pretty large for pre-Colombian America!). The book made a big splash because before her many people thought that the population density of the Amazon is low because the rainforest ecology cannot support large populations of people. Her book argued - very persuasively - that in fact the rainforest could and did support very large populations in urban centers. The reason Amazonain population density is so low today is bcause of the "great dying" in which native peoples died by the millions from the spread of old world diseases (one thing Diamond gets right). I read the book a long time ago. i have not read these two articles, but I am guessing they cover some of the same ground:
  • 2000 "The Lower Amazon: A Dynamic Human Habitat." In Imperfect Balance: Landscape Transformations in the Precolumbian Americas, D.L. Lentz, ed. Pp 455-491. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • 1999 "The Development of Prehistoric Complex Societies: Amazonia, a Tropical Forest." In Complex Polities in the Ancient Tropical World, E.A. Bacus, L.J. Lucero, and J. Allen, eds. Pp. 13-34. Arlington: American Anthropological Association.
The debate over whether humans in Amazonia contribute to or inhibit biodiversity has mostly been debated by conservation ecologists, the main articles are:
  • Chapin, Mac 2004 "A Challenge to Conservationists." World Watch November-December 2004 pp. 17-31. (probably available on-line, you can try googling it)
  • World Watch 2005 From Readers (responses to ―A Challenge to Conservationists‖ by Mac Chapin). World Watch January-February 2005 pp. 5-20.
  • Schwartzman, Stephen, Adriana Moreira, and Daniel Nepstad 2000 "Rethinking Tropical Forest Conservation: Perils in Parks." Conservation Biology 14(5): 1351-1357.
  • Redford, Kent H. and Steven Sanderson 2000 "Extracting Humans from Nature." Conservation Biology 14(5):1362-1364.
  • Schwartzman, Stephen, Daniel Nepstad, and Adriana Moreira 2000 "Arguing Tropical Forest Conservation: People verses Parks." Conservation Biology 14(5): 1358-1361.
Bill Balee is most famous for his book Footprints in the Forest; Wm. Denevan has written a LOT of articles, I am not sure where to begin but this is probably the best place:
  • 1992 “The Pristine Myth: The Landscape of the Americas in 1492,” in Annals of The Association of American Geographers 82(3): 369-385.
This is all for Amazonia. Richard Lee wrote a book called !Kung-San about the peoples of the Kalahari and one thing he documents is they eat about half the food available to them. The implication is that their societies are small not because they lack sufficient food, but because they have cultural reasons for not wanting to form large, dense societies. Marshall Sahlins, drawing largely on data from Australia, makes a similar argument in his essay "the Original Affluent Society" in his book Stone Age Economics. I do not know if Diamond cites any of this literature (i do not have his book at hand) but frankly, if he doesn't cite it, it means he is under-informed about Australia, Namibia, and Amazonia. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't understand why you don't feel qualified to modify the article! I've heard of a few of these sources, but most are new to me, and I'll scan them when I am able. I think on the whole what you say coheres better with Darwin's intuitive view, that the distribution of domesticable species isn't peculiarly biased against non-Eurasian places, minus of course his 19th century biases about civilization etc. Diamond basically says biodiversity was one of the major limiting factors in what different peoples "did", or at least that's what I took from the book.--Gargletheape (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because I do not have the articles on hand (or Roosevelt's book) and do not have time to reread them and to make meaningful conribution to the article I would need to have them at hand and b rereading them before editing. I do not think anyone who works in Amazonia think that biodiversity there in any way limited human endeavors, but I cannot provide specific quotes or citations. I appreciate your willingness to look for some of these articles and hoe others who watch this article and who have time might find it orth their while to try too. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No horses

Diamond points out that the Europeans had horses to domesticate, "native" Americans did not. What he fails to point out is that they did have horses 20,000 years ago when the "natives" first arrived. They ate them!

A bit reminiscent of someone killing their parents and trying for the court's sympathy because they are orphans! Need a WP:RELY citation to make this statement, which I do not have right now. Student7 (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

This recent edit introduced:

While Diamond advocates the treatment of history as a science (p. 425) subject to the comparative method and experimentation, he stereotypes evidence for differences in IQ between peoples of different geographic origins as the work of "numerous white American psychologists" (p. 20) without reviewing research such as that synthesized by Linda Gottfredson[1] and presented as the consensus view of Mainstream Science on Intelligence.

While such text would be great in an article written by a particular author (where this para would be the view of the author), it is not suitable here because it is an editor's commentary, that is, original research—not permitted. All information in an article here needs to be verifiable, and while the components of the text can be verified, the connection of them is known as WP:SYNTH—"synthesis", where an editor connects facts to suggest some conclusion. It's a while since I read the book, but I don't recall the issue of intelligence as being a significant part of the argument, apart from an attempt to show the errors in initial European views like "obviously we are smarter because they haven't even invented the wheel". If my recollection is correct, the commentary also has a WP:DUE problem. To support the above text, we would need a reliable source written by a relevant authority (e.g. not a geologist or a psychologist) which asserts that Diamond's argument is incorrect, and a significant reason for why Europeans successfully dominated other regions was due to their higher IQ.

One minor point: there is too much over-linking: we only link topics that are likely to provide information expanding on the topic of this article, and linking "history", "science", and other common terms dilutes the value of useful links. I hope to get a chance to join in the editing, but that is unlikely for a week or so, apart from routine stuff. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section is undue

The criticism/response section is currently half of the article, while the reception section is three lines. The book has not generated enough controversy and criticism to warrant such extensive coverage. Does anyone have any specific suggestions of what should be kept, or better ways to summarize the criticism/response content? aprock (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, the section "The theory outlined" is anything but an outline, and should be cleaned up as well. aprock (talk) 05:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Aprock. The Criticism section is too large. It needs to be shortened. Omegastar (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


NPOV dispute: Some opposing views removed

See this edit: [1]. Please explain why? The views are well-sourced and from different viewpoints. I hope we can work to have an encyclopedia that includes all views.Miradre (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's 99% original research. And the only legitimately termed "criticism" of Diamond's book was a mere passing mention in Templar, quote: "Diamond’s conceptualization contributes to some but not all of the big picture" which you embellished way out proportion. The rest is pure OR.
You must have had a rejuvenating hiatus given your whirlwind of activity today-in just over 4 hours, changes to over 20 articles-including coming up with 6 new references to craft the new race/intelligence section here within a span of 4 minutes. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Diamond is mentioned in the abstract of Templer's and Arikawa's papper. He is mentioned several times, not just once, in the body. How about only including this view? Of course also criticism of this paper. If you do no want to include alternative geographic theories here we could link to them in another article.Miradre (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Diamond's other "mentions" in Templer/Arikawa are simply in conjunction with brief and generic outline sketch of his thesis-there is no other criticism made of it or the book. I don't know what you mean by "alternative geographic theories". But the overall pattern I'm seeing suggests the question means, "if not here, is there someplace else can we squeeze in something about Lynn and Rushton's work?"
And I think it's ill-advised to come to wikipedia looking for homes for pet sources on any topic. It's looking at the problem backwards, because normally the topic of the article determines what sources are significant. It's backwards to look at it as, "I like these sources-where can we use them?" It's especially ill-advised now given the sanctions from arbcom are still in effect. (See findings 22.1.2, 22.1.3, 22.1.6, and 22.1.7 ) Professor marginalia (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Templer and Arikawa's paper states regarding Diamond's theory: "It is likely that the Diamond’s conceptualization contributes to some but not all of the big picture provided by the present findings and assorted research. It does not mesh well with the correlation of 0.62 between cranial capacity and distance from the equator reported by Beals et al. (1984). There is probably no one conceptual contribution that explains 100% of the present findings."
Regarding the other geographic theories (like challenging environment causing higher IQ or geography allowing high population density causing selection for higher IQ, in both cases causing more advanced societies) they are of course interesting alternatives to Diamond's geographic theory but if you do not want to include them here because Diamond is not explicitly mentioned (although Diamond is mentioned in Lynn's paper briefly) then I can accept that. But in order to let the reader know there are alternatives, how briefly mentioning that there are alternative geographic theories and providing a link to another page?Miradre (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Professor marginalia is totally correct. There should be no attempt to push R&I into every article on the flimsy basis that some point in the article is mentioned in an R&I tract. Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Diamond wrote his book explicitly in part as a response to race and IQ arguments. So I think those he criticizes should be allowed to present a view according to NPOV.Miradre (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, we will not be playing any reindeer games over this. Diamond gives even less attention to heritable theories of intelligence than Templer does to Diamond's thesis about geographic disparities. There's nothing in the book about cranial capacity, period, or of the theories of Richard Lynn-and nobody has said so any of these refs. 99.89.112.51 (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, Diamond does not go into specifics. Neither does the response I gave before. But in the introduction Diamond clearly states that the book was in part a criticism of race and IQ theories. So a brief reply is in accordance with NPOV.Miradre (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Terms like "NPOV" have a specific meaning (see WP:NPOV) and are not a panacea to justify coatracking favorite theories into articles with some vague connection to the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no vague connection to the topic. Diamond's book was explicitly in part a criticism of race and IQ theories. Templer and Arikawa's paper explicitly mentions and criticizes Diamond's book in the abstract as well as in the body.Miradre (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your text is more about Templer and Arikawa and their views than the subject of this article. It is simply not helpful here. Not gaining consensus does not justify tags, so please add a justification soon. Johnuniq (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to remove the criticism of their study? We can also cut the description of their theory by giving a link to another article that describes? Then there will almost only be text about the book. Currently the article is not NPOV by excluding significant criticisms of the book.Miradre (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I propose this text: "Templer and Arikawa (2006) argued that while the book provides one explanation for differences in human accomplishments, it did not prove that this is a better explanation than explanations based on group differences in intelligence, which may in part be due to genetic factors. In fact, they argue, it is possible that several theories may be right and each one provide part of the answer to varying human accomplishments."[2]Miradre (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is largely irrelevant or at best peripheral to the book. GG&S didn't address 'the alien civilization' theory of economic development either. Doesn't mean we should put 'the alien civilization' theory about how "while the book provides one explanation for differences in human accomplishments, it did not prove that aliens weren't actually responsible". Keep it out, remove tag.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have another article waiting. A review article of the book by Rushton. I will add it soon.Miradre (talk) 07:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have included Rushton's review because a) Diamond up front dismisses psychometric research so a rebuttal is on point b) there are several books which raise the point that different environments may select for different traits (not necessarily restricted to iq, but rule following, parental provisioning, docility), such as 'Before the Dawn' by Nicholas Wade and 'The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution' by Greg Cochran & Henry Harpending. Perhaps I should refer to those books instead of Rushton's review?PK019 (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute

See this edit: [2] There is no policy justification for removing this sourced review and criticism of the book.

Since the article now excludes critical, sourced views I will add an NPOV tag. Please explain reasons for the deletions of sourced criticisms.Miradre (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a non-notable fringe criticism. Does not merit inclusion. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a review by a notable researcher. The book was created in part to criticize IQ research so according to NPOV a response is appropriate.Miradre (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The book was created in part to criticize IQ research? Really? Can you provide a citation for that statement? Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly stated in the intro. Page 19-22 if I remember the actual page numbers. It is also stated in this article, see "The theory outlined section".Miradre (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a page number for "The theory outlined" section? There's no chapter by that name, and my copy does not include subheaders. As for pp. 19-22 - Diamond says that he is providing an alternative to intelligence-based theories, he does not [fixed typo, inserted missing word] say that he intends to critique them. Guettarda (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I said "this article" for that section. That is, this Wikipedia article. I should have been clearer. Not that WP is the best source but it shows that others agree with that one purpose of the book was to provide an alternative to IQ theories. As such I think a response by researchers in the field he criticizes is appropriate.Miradre (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't make the mistake of using Wikipedia articles as a source. As for using them to infer what "others" think...no, we don't do that.

A response by researchers in the field he criticizes is appropriate - again, can you provide a supporting citation? Where does he criticise Rushton? I can't find a mention of Rushton in the book or in the index. We can't work off vague assertions and the implied opinions of Wikipedia editors (which you claim to be able discern from the article) are useless. Guettarda (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why must he mention Rushton specifically? That criteria does not apply to the other critics. Rushton works in the general field, IQ reserach, that the book criticizes or provides an alternative to. I should clarify Rushton's view which is that the book misleads the reader by presenting none of the arguments and evidence in favor of IQ theories and summarily implies that they have all been scientifically rejected.Miradre (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You said: I think a response by researchers in the field he criticizes is appropriate. Since you haven't established that the book criticises the field at all, I can only conclude that you're trying to say that Diamond criticises Rushton. Which, as far as I can tell, he doesn't. Guettarda (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself you stated that the book states an intention to "critique" or provide an alternative to IQ theories. Rushton works in the field of IQ theories. Again, none of the other critics are mentioned in the book so why should this criteria apply to Rushton?Miradre (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty obvious typo on my part, now fixed. Sorry if that confused you. Guettarda (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See the quote from the book below.Miradre (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In general, Wikipedia is not a place to promote points of view, and in particular this article should not be used as yet another place where R&I proponents can insert their hooks. The proposed material is very tangential to this article and less disruption would occur if the matter were dropped quickly. Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be tangential when it was one of the stated reasons for writing the book? Miradre (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You still need a source for that assertion, as I have been telling you all day. Where was it stated? Guettarda (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the book, page 25: "Nevertheless, we have to wonder. We keep seeing all those glaring, persistent differences in peoples' status. We're assured that the seemingly transparent biological explanation for the world's inequalities as of A.D. 1500 is wrong, but we're not told what the correct explanation is. Until we have some convincing, detailed, agreed-upon explanation for the broad pattern of history, most people will continue to suspect that the racist biological explanation is correct after all. That seems to me the strongest argument for writing this book." Miradre (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that Rushton would likely strongly disagree with label "racist". It is like labelling all people who accept that people differ in IQ or other abilities as "social darwinists".Miradre (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To begin with, it's misleading to add emphasis to a quote without saying that you are doing so. But that's entirely beside the point. What Diamond is saying in that paragraph is that "the strongest argument" for writing the book is the lack of a "convincing, detailed, agreed-upon explanation". He isn't making the case that the "racist" explanation is wrong, he's working from the (mainstream) premise that it's wrong. Guettarda (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The most common view among the experts on the subject in the only survey done was that there are genetic differences regarding IQ between races. Rushton's criticism is that this view is described inaccurately and summarily dismissed as scientifically disproven, misleading the reader regarding the views of the scientific experts on the issue.Miradre (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As another point. There is another study that also mentions the book. It has been mentioned before but I will repeat it here since it is part of the NPOV dispute and is related to the Rushton review: "Templer and Arikawa (2006) argued that while the book provides one explanation for differences in human accomplishments, it did not prove that this is a better explanation than explanations based on group differences in intelligence, which may in part be due to genetic factors. In fact, they argue, it is possible that several theories may be right and each one provide part of the answer to varying human accomplishments."
This is somewhat similar to Rushton criticism so I think they could be combined into a single paragraph.Miradre (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was already explained to you above. If you are having trouble digesting that, you'll have to resolve on your own. aprock (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"the alien" theory of economic development argument? That is just silly. The book does not claim to be a reply to any theories about aliens influencing economic development; the book does claim to be a reply to intelligence theories regarding economic development. As such the views of those advocating intelligence theories are relevant.Miradre (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What aliens are you talking about? Quite confused. Anyway, you're back to square one - what reason is there to create an entire section devoted to Rushton's views? Why are they notable? Why are Rushton's views notable at all? Aren't his views generally seen as lying somewhat on the fringe? Guettarda (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "alien" argument was from an earlier discussion above.
In the only survey ever done on IQ experts, the view that there are genetic racial differences in IQ was the most common one.[3] It is not just Rushton who criticizes Diamond. Templer and Arkiawa does the same.[4]Miradre (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two points: First, please put such thoughts on a suitable R&I page because the subject of this article is not R&I. Second, no amount of discussion is likely to be satisfying, so I suggest that no more occur unless some new material is raised. Johnuniq (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I received a question regarding whether Rushton views were fringe which I answered. They are not (regarding IQ) among IQ reserchers. I just added new material. Some links here. Quote from Diamond's book some paragraphs above showing that the most important reason for writing the book was as a reply to theories regarding biological group differences.Miradre (talk) 09:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rushton's views are fringe. Miradre refers to a community of "IQ researchers" among whom his views are not fringe. This is a community of scholars who all agree with him - I mean, the group identified as "IQ scholars" is a group of people who all share the same view. In fact, there is a larger number of scholars who debate questions concerning race and IQ and among them Rushton's views are most certainly fringe. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IQ scholars are the scientific experts on IQ. No, not all the IQ scholars have the same view. There is on ongoing debate among IQ scholars regarding the question which is not settled. But there is no evidence that the view, that there are genetic group differences in IQ, is fringe.Miradre (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this discussion has gotten off on all sorts of tangents that are irrelevant to this article. The relevant points are:

  1. Miadre's assertion that the book was written to critique the "racist" interpretation.

    From the section s/he pointed to and the quotes s/he has provided, it's obvious that Diamond is working from the assumption that this position is wrong.

  2. Miadre's assertion that Rushton is an appropriate spokesman for the field of "IQ research".

    The point of the matter is that Rushton's views are non-mainstream. Now, for all I know he might be entirely correct and is being sidelined for purely PC reasons. Or it might because he is totally wrong. That's utterly and completely irrelevant to us. Our job isn't to right great wrongs. And while discussions of Rushton's rightness or wrongness might be appropriate in an article that discusses his theories, they are utterly irrelevant here. All the more so given that R&I topics are subject to arbcomm sanctions. Guettarda (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. OK. I will cite another part from the book. Page 19: "The objection to such racist explanations is not just that they are loathsome, but also that they are wrong. Sound evidence for the existence of human differences in intelligence that parallel human differences in technology is lacking." Here Diamond's misleads the reader by completely ignoring the arguments and evidence in favor such differences.
2. In the only survey ever done on IQ experts, the view that there are genetic racial differences in IQ was the most common one.[5].Miradre (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. It is not only Rushton. There is also the similar criticism by Templer and Arkiawa.Miradre (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. You believe that the book was written to critique this. That's fine. Now you need to find a supporting citation. Your own interpretation of the book, or of this article, or any other interpretation is irrelevant. Find a third party source or drop it. As for Templer and Arkiawa...what are you arguing that they say? And please provide a citation. Guettarda (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase that about "critique". Maybe a better description would be an "an argument against" or "alternative to" IQ theories. The problem is, according to Rushton, that the book describes the scientific status and evidence for IQ theories incorrectly. As such Rushton criticizes the book for misleading the reader.
You want another source for that the book is concerned about racial IQ theories? OK: "Professor Diamond’s main concern is to reject any simple racial explanation of the apparent differences in material culture between different regions of the planet. In particular, he argues that there is no essential difference in intelligence between races;"[6]
I have already in this section given a link and proposed text regarding Templer and Arkiwa but I can repeat it: "Templer and Arikawa (2006) argued that while the book provides one explanation for differences in human accomplishments, it did not prove that this is a better explanation than explanations based on group differences in intelligence, which may in part be due to genetic factors. In fact, they argue, it is possible that several theories may be right and each one provide part of the answer to varying human accomplishments."[7]Miradre (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you seem to be missing here is that Rushton's views are clearly non-mainstream. So unless Rushton's theories are a clear focus of the book, we shouldn't include his rebuttal. See WP:FRINGE. As for Templer and Arkiawa...they aren't discussing Rushton, let alone Diamond's discussion of Rushton, so I fail to see how any of this is relevant. Guettarda (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the only survey ever done on IQ experts, the view that there are genetic racial differences in IQ was the most common one.[8]. So Rushton is not outside the "mainstream" among IQ researcher (regarding IQ).
Templer and Arkiawa provide their own critique of the book. This is not dependent on Rushton's criticism in any way. But both their critique and Rushton's criticism should be included for an NPOV article.Miradre (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop being obtuse. This isn't an article about "IQ experts". Phillip E. Johnson is a leader of the intelligent design movement, but that doesn't mean we insert his opinion willy-nilly into evolution articles. As for Templer and Arkiawa - we are discussing this edit. I see no mention of either of them in that edit. If you want to start a discussion about them please feel free to do so. But don't send this one off on a tangent. Guettarda (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Intelligent design is a pseudoscience. IQ testing and research are not.
This section is titled "NPOV dispute" which includes if the article should include Templer and Arkiawa's criticism of the book. But we can discuss the criticisms one at a time if you prefer. Let us take the Rushton review first.Miradre (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(a) Please stop being so obtuse. It's an analogy, not a direct comparison. You argued that Rushton is mainstream in his own subfield. Since you did not provide a direct citation to the resource you linked to, I cannot verify what you're saying. It's noteworthy that you don't claim that the source says that Rushton is mainstream, you say that "view x is most common" and "Rushton holds view x". Assuming that you are correct (and your readings of Diamond give me ample reason to doubt you), that simply speaks to the prevalence of a view within a small subcommunity. Johnson's view is mainstream within the ID community, but it doesn't belong in Wikipedia science articles not because it's pseudoscience, but because it's fringe. Likewise, Rushton's view, no matter how well it is accepted within his own community, lies well outside the scholarly mainstream. As do Johnson's views. So, per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, we can't treat them as if they were.

(b) Please read your own comment. You were talking about one particular edit that was reverted. It has taken over 2500 words to try to explain one simple policy issue to you. I'm not willing to be dragged into a second discussion before you have grasped this issue. Guettarda (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can read more about the survey here: The_IQ_Controversy,_the_Media_and_Public_Policy_(book). You are arguing that it is the views among all scientists that matter, even scientists in completely unrelated fields such as geology and astronomy, and not the the views of the actual experts on the issue? That would of course be very strange.
The partially-genetic explanation for racial IQ differences is not universally accepted among the experts in the field. Neither is the all-environmental explanation. There is an ongoing debate regarding this. But neither view is fringe. If you want the read a literature review summarizing many peer-reviewed studies supporting the partially-genetic explanation see this literature review in a journal published by the American Psychological Association: [9]Miradre (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly tenditious at this point. You're simply repeating the same arguments over and over again. Your assertion--that Diamond's book is a critique of the work by Lynn, Rushton or any in that vein, and therefore their views are automatically notable here-- is so tenuous and belabored it's absurd. The fact is that they are such minor actors compared with Diamond's numerous and more notable -not to mention more relevant- criticisms that nobody outside their little clique of Pioneer Fundeds has paid them any mind at all for their views of this book. You could argue until you're blue in the face, (which I submit you are already doing here), but that will not change the fact that they aren't notable here. Their views are insignificant. End.Of.Story. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is a false description as anyone can see above. Lynn? I have not even mentioned him! Templer and Arkiawa are not PF grantees.Miradre (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one asserting it's a critique of the IQ/race research, and it makes no sense to pretend Diamond's critiquing Rushton alone. He doesn't mention either of them. Besides the "passing mention" discussion of Templer etc, who took any notice of the Templer paper (besides execrable websites such as "Majority Rights" which you've linked above)? Any guesses who the few are who cite it? Professor marginalia (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It not just my assertion. Besides what I have quoted from the book I must obviously repeat this again: ""Professor Diamond’s main concern is to reject any simple racial explanation of the apparent differences in material culture between different regions of the planet. In particular, he argues that there is no essential difference in intelligence between races;"[10]
43 other papers have cited the Templer and Arkiawa study, both negative and positive, so it obviously had an impact.Miradre (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're presuming that by rejecting any "simple racial explanation of apparent differences" means "Diamond is rejecting Rushton et al", that might well be the most damning admission I've seen yet coming from an admirer. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A problem seems to be that some are unaware of the the racial genetic explanation is not a fringe view among the experts. It takes some time and explanation to correct this misunderstanding which is common among those not knowledgeable about the research.Miradre (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What ever the "problem" is in terms of real world authorities and experts writing about these topics, your problem here is that wikipedia isn't the place to "correct their misunderstanding". Professor marginalia (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read again what I stated. The "real world authorities and experts writing about these topics," know that the partially-genetic view is not fringe. This incorrect perception may be common among others. But it is the scientific experts in the field that counts.Miradre (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're basing this on an anonymous survey held decades ago, you're never going to make any headway in pushing that particular POV. aprock (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is the only survey ever done. On the other hand, there is no evidence that the partially-genetic theory is fringe. I can also point to this literature review summarizing many peer-reviewed studies supporting the partially-genetic explanation in a journal published by the American Psychological Association: [11] Miradre (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Then whatever. Put away the survey. It's irrelevant to the issue here. The issue here is that Templer etc statements or views about Diamond are fringe. They are trivial! They are essentially substance-free, they're little more than vague conjecture, and an inconsequential tangent with essentially no comparability or contribution, qualitatively or quantitatively, to anything else in that paper. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is the main goal of the book? I quote again: "Professor Diamond’s main concern is to reject any simple racial explanation of the apparent differences in material culture between different regions of the planet. In particular, he argues that there is no essential difference in intelligence between races;"[12] So it seems very appropriate according to NPOV to have a response by those who argue otherwise. If the book misleads the reader, as Rushton argues, then that is hardly trivial.Miradre (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, yeah, yeah. We heard you the first six times you've said this. Whether or not the issue is trivial, Rushton and Templer's views of Diamond are trivial. And I've wasted too much time on this to continue with it another six rounds. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you heard my answer the first time, why then do you continue bringing up the same question again and again? Miradre (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, because the answer you've given is incorrect. Guettarda (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can read more about the survey here - no, I can't. That's a Wikipedia article, we can't use that as a source.
  • see this literature review in a journal published by the American Psychological Association - you're joking, right? You're using an article by Rushton as the basis for your assertion that Rushton's position is mainstream? Yeah... Speaking of which, before you claim that Rushton's views are mainstream, you might want to look at the links that Hrafn provided: Talk:J._Philippe_Rushton#Biological_support_for_a_biological_explanation.3F. Clearly his views are seen as fringe by biologists. And since his theories are biological, as Hrafn mentions, it's far more telling to see what biologists think of them, rather than what non-biologists think of them. The "mainstream" views of a very small, non-mainstream field aren't mainstream - not when the far larger mainstream world of biology dismisses them. Guettarda (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the wikilink for your convenience. Otherwise you will have to read the copyrighted book which I obviously cannot provide online. But that does not affect WP:V criteria. You can get it at a library if interested.
Rushton does research in several areas. One is his rK theory which as you note is very controversial. But that is not the issue here which only is in regard to the partially-genetic theory for racial differences in average IQ. That is not the same as Rushton's rK-theory which is about an enormous number of different areas not related to IQ and intelligence.Miradre (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the editors above who have kindly given their time to defend this article, but some discussions are pointless as no amount of logic will dissuade those who wish to push their favorite topic. Consensus is clear, and further discussion is not required—indeed, more responses would merely feed the excitement. Further repetitive commentary should be removed or hatted, and anyone who wants to take the matter further should find a suitable noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will add an NPOV tag to the section and leave it at that for now if we cannot reach an agreement here.Miradre (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, that would not be appropriate. Tagging is inappropriate if there is consensus. You might consider asking for a WP:3O. But don't tag the article just because you cannot get your way. There needs to be some unresolved dispute, Guettarda (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is another critical source criticizing the book for ignoring genetic explanations and genetic differences between populations: The 10,000 Year Explosion I do not think any of the objections you have tried to apply earlier can be used against this source. So any objections to including this criticism? See the linked WP article for its general arguments. The book mentions GG&S several times and criticizes it for ignoring such genetic explanations for differing development between different parts of the world.Miradre (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...still not citations? Why am I not surprised? Guettarda (talk) 02:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One example: "In Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond observed: "A larger area or population means more potential inventors, more competing societies, more innovations available to adopt-and more pressure to adopt and retain innovations, because societies failing to do well will be eliminated by competing socieites." We take this observation a stop further: There are also more genetic innovations in larger populations."Miradre (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a quotation, not a citation. And what does that have to do with either Rushton or the idea that intelligence, not geography, explains differences? Guettarda (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not necessarily have anything to do with Rushton. But it is a criticism of Diamond's rejection of biological differences between groups as an explanation for differing development.Miradre (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Citation? Guettarda (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want the biographical details of the book? They are The 10,000 Year Explosion, Gregory Cochran, Henry Harpending, Basic Books, 2009. Page numbers? See page 66 and 121.Miradre (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sick of your rudeness. But having asked you for page numbers many times, I can only conclude that your refusal to provide them until asked over and over is intentional obtuseness. The library's copy is currently checked out, but I have placed a recall. I should have it within the next two weeks. At that point we can continue this conversation. Guettarda (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see you have only asked me once before which did not cause any problems. I will be happy to wait while having an NPOV tag to indicate the unresolved nature.Miradre (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. Based on your quotation, Cochrane and Harpending aren't criticising GGAS in your quote, they're proposing to expand on Diamond's theory. So that's an entirely distinct issue. Guettarda (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Let us make it clearer. On page page 121 it is noted that GSS states that today the dominant power are those areas who a long time ago had a high population density, or areas with descendants from such areas. GSS is criticized for stating that this is entirely cultural and learned. This is very unlikely since if the cause was only due culture then it should be relatively easy for other populations to catch-up. That they do not indicates that genetic differences have occured between ancient high-density and ancient low-density areas that disfavor the later regarding current development.Miradre (talk) 03:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I find your grammatically challenged morass of text rather difficult to follow. A direct quote from C&H might help. Figure out what you're trying to say before you write. Try using shorter sentences. And re-read it before hitting [save], bearing in mind that the rest of us don't know what you're thinking, only what comes out. Guettarda (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, even if the text itself is quite long but I will try to quote the relevant parts. "Jared Diamond observed in Guns, Germs, and Steel that "the nations rising to new power are still ones that were incorporated thousands of years ago into the old centers of dominance based on food production, or that have been repopulated by people from those centers...Prospects for world dominance of sub-Saharan Africans, Aboriginal Australians, and Native Americans remain dim. The hand of history's course at 8000 BC lies heavily on us." But what kind of experiences are we talking about? Diamond asserts that such differences were entirely cultural, that is to say, learned-but if this were so, populations that missed out on these experiences could in principle catch up rapidly... ...On the other hand, genetic changes that accommodated people to a dense hierarchical society could easily have developed over those millenia, and genetic information can't easily be transferred-yet."
  • Also, if you have trouble getting the book about the survey of IQ experts here is a journal article with only the survey: "Snyderman, Mark; Rothman, Stanley (1987), "Survey of expert opinion on intelligence and aptitude testing", American Psychologist, v42 n2 p137-44 Feb 1987"
  • Finally, here is a link to Rushton's review of GSS: [13]
  • Happy reading! Miradre (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Cochran/Harpending stuff is arguably tenable. (note: as far as I can see, the challenge it presents against Diamond has nothing to do with IQ or cranial measurements today and other such esoterica Miradre's trying to shoehorn here a la Rushton, Templer et al.) Discussion of it should break out to a different section. (And unless I'm mistaken and those authors connect Diamond to present day heritability measurements of IQ, then absolutely NO-just because Cochran and Harpending talk about IQ elsewhere doesn't mean it can be SYNTH'd to Diamond to coatrack Rushton et al in here). Professor marginalia (talk) 04:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Drop the Survey of expert opinion on intelligence. For good. It's irrelevant here. It has no direct connection to this book! You're not allowed to connect them. Its authors didn't. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cochran/Harpending also continue with "If the root causes of these differences are biological changes affecting cognitive and personality traits, changes that the product of natural selection acting over millenia, conventional solutions to the problem of slow modernization among people with shallow experience of farming are highly problematic. And yet, methods based on an underlying biological causes might be very effective."
  • Cochran/Harpending in another section goes into quite a bit of detail regarding the high IQ of Ashkenazi Jews, including with heritability calculations, but since that is not directly connected with GSS I agree that that part is not relevant for this article.
  • I included the citation for the survey due to earlier claims here of "fringe" status for the partially-genetic explanation for group differences in IQ.Miradre (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, someone needs to take a look at the The 10,000 Year Explosion article too since it looks like possibly some monkey business has been going on there as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is on my to do list.Miradre (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I'm pretty sure you understand that I think *other* eyes are needed on that article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cochran is a contributor to the gene expression blog. Popular figures from blogs or youtube channels do have a tendency to inspire fans to come and tell the story. Oftentimes fans are over-excited to come "set the record straight" on wp--but this tendency isn't necessarily orchestrated. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism by Rushton removed

See [14]. While the text removed has some problems such as "and others" when only Rushton is cited, I think it can be easily be modified to contain no OR. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rushton's website: http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org strikes me as being sophomoric - not academic at all. It was created just to push Rushton's views on evolution. I can't see giving credence to what Rushton has to say and certainly don't think the website should be used as a citation. GroveGuy (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The website is just having a copy. The article was published in a journal: [15]. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be fine to include something about Rushton (much more neutrally worded than the way it was in there), AS LONG as we also let readers know who Rushton is. Pioneer Fund etc.VolunteerMarek 09:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the article already includes a line about this guy. more than enough.-- altetendekrabbe  09:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a straw-man. None of Rushton's actual arguments are stated. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Altetendekrabbe, yeah, you're right - that should be sufficient.VolunteerMarek 10:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize Rushton's views:

  1. The book ignores the alternative or complementary explanation of IQ differences instead of geography explaining cultural differences.
  2. Makes no mention of the evidence supporting the IQ explanation.
  3. Rushton had send Diamond copies of published research on the relationship between brain size and IQ and racial differences which Diamond neither answered to or mentioned in the book.
  4. "It seems incredible that, as an evolutionary biologist, Diamond seems unaware that it is different environments that cause, via natural selection, biological differences among populations."
  5. "When evolutionary biologists describe ultimate and proximate factors they typically do so to describe how natural selection works on genes. Diamond is far too well-informed and experienced an evolutionist not to know this. Brain size and IQ are obvious candidates for mediating mechanisms".
  6. "Even if cultural innovation were initially the result of relatively favorably geographic processes, each such innovation would itself set the stage for for a process of genetic selection for those best adapted to survive under such conditions."
  7. "Further, if being centrally located increases the probability of receiving cultural innovations the arise elsewhere, if also increases the probability of receiving genes that provide a relative advantage in applying such innovations."
  8. Diamond was not the first to propose geography: "Diamond's conclusion, neither novel or unique (Croby 1986; Darlington 1969)"
  9. Diamond does not specify or give credit regarding which of the ideas presented are those of other scholars by not having inline references.
  10. The book seems to be a response to the influence of the then recent Bell Curve debate.
  11. Diamond's stated strong emotional response to arguments regarding racial differences in IQ seems to affect the presentation. An example of the moralistic fallacy.

Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please use one of the many other articles available to battle over the Race and Intelligence issues—this article is about a book. Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rushton's review is about the book. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rushton's views are in the extreme minority. I.e. His opinions should be afforded the proper WP:WEIGHT of precisely zero. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the only survey ever done on IQ experts his view, the partially-genetic explanation, was the most common one: The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy (book). Old, but there are no survey more recent.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Per WP:UNDUE the one line inserted so far is more than enough. There is no need for an article on a book to represent peripheral side-issues, hardly addressed in the book, in a disproportionate way. Mathsci (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just having a line ("J. Philippe Rushton, whose racial arguments on IQ were branded as racist in the book, said that it seemed that the evolutionary biologist Diamond did not know about evolutionn.") including Diamond's character attack on Rushton ("racist") and only including what seems to be a straw man version of Rushton's argument hardly seems NPOV. Furthermore, "evolutionary biologist Diamond did not know about evolution" is not an argument made by Rushton. Rather one of Rushton's argument is that Diamond knows very well relevant things regardng evolution he does not mention in the book. Anyway, the local current consensus does not seem to support changing the text so I will not edit the paragraph. Hopefully more uninvolved editors will add their views. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The usual advice is to comment on content and not contributors. Mathsci (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, what part of his post commented on contributors. Secondly, given the survey and that JD said he wrote the book in response to the hereditarian hypothesis on race and intelligence (note I haven't read the book; I'm just going of what others have said) the article should have some hereditarian based criticism as per NPOV. 110.32.132.48 (talk) 08:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Hopefully more uninvolved editors will add their views" (my emphasis). That is a comment on editors, not on content.
As others have said, this article is not related to the article Race and intelligence (the talk page of which you have just edited, cf [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]). The survey that you mention also has nothing to do with this book, so any further discussion of that particular point is WP:UNDUE on this talk page and would be disruptive. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Diamond, as stated in the book, wrote the book at least in part as a response to the race and intelligence debate. Thus it is related to that discussion. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A mention in a book dealing with a lot of big picture topics does not entitle coatracking of undue views here. Johnuniq (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Making a series of non sequiturs to justify inclusion of material which is not directly related to the book (the subject of this article) is WP:UNDUE as well as unhelpful. It would disproportionately skew the article as several experienced editors have already mentioned. Stringing togetehr isolated cherry-picked sentences from a chain of unrelated sources could be used to justify even the most abstruse kind of point, but not in a convincing way, nor in a way recognized on wikipedia, and evenly formally disallowed in this particular topic area. Mathsci (talk) 09:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify what Diamond said in the book (page 25 in the Prologue): "Until we have some convincing, detailed, agreed-upon explanation for the broad pattern of history, most people will continue to suspect that the racist biological explanation is correct after all. That seems to me the strongest argument for writing this book. Authors are regularly asked by journalists to summarize a long book in one sentence. For this book, here is such a sentence: "History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples' environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves."" Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is not discussed extensively in the book and the topic itself is tangential to the actual content of the book (it is possible to produce a chain of tenuous arguments to suggest otherwise, but that is just undue WP:OR and WP:SYNTH). When the Royal Society awarded their Poulenc prize for the book, a citation was produced, presumably of more than one sentence. Their evaluation is far more relevant to the article (at present it is nor even summarised). At the moment you are just trying to use this article as a WP:COATRACK for quite unrelated content. Mathsci (talk) 09:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the author himself is an authoritative source regarding why he wrote the book and how to summarize it. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting now that the main reason Jared Taylor Jared Diamond wrote his book was in response to this debate? That is not what the article states at present. Is it perhaps your own personal interpretation of one sentence, which is not actually central to the book or in fact discussed in any depth there? On wikipedia editing usually goes somewhat in the opposite direction: to take fifty pages and summarise them in two or three sentences. Therein lies the meaning of WP:DUE. Mathsci (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The quote speaks for itself and obviously the book is a better source regarding its content than Wikipedia's article. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes do not speak for themselves. Quotes can be interpreted different ways. Quotes must be understood in context. When someone says that a quote "speaks for itself," it usually means that they are too lazy to take the effort to read and try to understand the larger work and thus be able to understand the quote in context, or it means that theey are just pushing their own POV and cowering behind someone else's words, taken out of context. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The quote does in fact speak for itself: "History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples' environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves." As the quote does not mention Rushton or his work in any way, using that quote to push Rushton content into this article is absurd, disruptive, and amounts to POV pushing. aprock (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A reviewer does not have to be mentioned in a book in order for his review are to be relevant. Most or all of the reviewers of the book mentiond in this article are not named in the book. Please represent my point correctly. The full quote from Diamond was "Until we have some convincing, detailed, agreed-upon explanation for the broad pattern of history, most people will continue to suspect that the racist biological explanation is correct after all. That seems to me the strongest argument for writing this book. Authors are regularly asked by journalists to summarize a long book in one sentence. For this book, here is such a sentence: "History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples' environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves."" Here is a review stating that the book is at least in part an argument against racial IQ differences as an explanation for societal differences.[26].Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
using that quote to push Rushton content into this article is absurd, disruptive, and amounts to POV pushing aprock (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something? I can't find any mention of Rushton in that source. Guettarda (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See my earlier statements including the one immediately above regarding if a reviewer has to be named in a book in order to be relevant. We seem to be going in circles currently. I will not currently add material regarding Rushton to the article since I do not think there is currently a local consensus for that. I hope more editors will add their views. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I read what you said. You are arguing that Rushton's views are relevant even though Diamond doesn't mention him by name. And you provided a source to buttress your assertion. Which is fine. Except that the source doesn't mention Rushton. If Lamal doesn't connect Diamond's book with Rushton, what's the point of it? Surely you aren't saying that Lamal's mere mention of "racial IQ differences" is a magic word that, said three times, automatically summons BeetlejuiceRushton? Because that would just be absurd. Guettarda (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let us say there is a book that has as a major topic the issue of global warming. It does not name a particular global warming researcher. Is this global warming reseracher still allowed to write a review of the book? Yes, I would say. Can Wikipedia still quote this review in an article about the book despite the book not naming this researcher? Yes, I would say. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. What does that have to do with this article? This isn't a book about global warming, and Rushton isn't a global warming researcher. I fail to see why you are rambling on about all this irrelevant stuff. Guettarda (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or, to put it otherwise - if you can only make your point by analogy, make sure the analogy applies. Guettarda (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I again think we are now going in circles. I have stated my case. As stated, I will not currently add material regarding Rushton since I do not think there is a current local consensus. I hope more editors will add their views. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Going in circles? Really? You're in a habit of making disjointed statements while ignoring requests by other editors that you make some sense? I see. Then I really think you need to read WP:DE. Guettarda (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BeetlejuiceRushton is a pretty marginal figure who simply keeps repeating the same claims whatever the venue. Diamond's book was very widely reviewed. If we are going to include in this article an account of different reviews, maybe we should first come up with a reasonable and neutral search criterion (e.g. most widely cited reviews, or reviews in the top journals) rather than cherry-pick reviews that say what we want to say. We should never use quotes simply as a means to include an editor's view in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guettarda, I will try to be clearer. Is there a policy stating that Wikipedia disallows reviews if the author of the review is not named in the material being reviewed? I do not know any such policy. The book, as I have argued above, provided input in the race-IQ debate, and Rushton, a researcher in that area and a well-known proponent of the other side in the debate, have reviewed that input. Therefore, I argue it is relevant and should be mentioned. There are currently no views from the opposing side regarding the race-IQ issue in the article which is needed for the article to be NPOV. But I recognize that I do not currently have a consensus for that and will not add that to the article. I hope more editors will add their views. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I should have clicked through to your user page sooner...but then, I thought you were still topic-banned, Miadre. I agree - until someone comes along with something new to add to this topic, we should not discuss it further. Guettarda (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci, given the quote supplied above, this book is about R&I, so we need to make sure the opinion of most researchers in the field is included. Say you have piece of media that is reviewed well in the press, but supports a minority point of view. Are you to argue that Wikipedia's article on the media, whatever it is, should not contain any mention of the mainstream view of experts? 110.32.192.144 (talk) 06:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can recommend reading the book. It's interesting, and it would help avoid mistaken comments. Johnuniq (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The IP might also read the responses of Jared Diamond in this transcript of a 2004 PBS interview about the book.[27] The other topics raised by the IP have nothing to do with this article and seem unhelpful, Mathsci (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. What of my comments were mistaken? (I have seen the film.) 2. "The other topics raised by the IP have nothing to do with this article and seem unhelpful" - This is an assertion which you offer no evidence for. 3. You didn't answer the question. 110.32.150.94 (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The book, which is a historical account, does not mention IQ tests anywhere, nor does Jared Diamond in the interview. So, as almost everybody else has mentioned here apart from one other user, any attempt to use this article as a WP:COATRACK for topics covered by WP:ARBR&I would be WP:UNDUE. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IQ tests are mentioned on page 20 of the prologue. Intelligence mentioned numerous times throughout the book. Here is a review stating that the book is at least in part an argument against racial IQ differences as an explanation for societal differences.[28] Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Passing comments like that cannot be used as an excuse for making this article into a WP:COATRACK. There is also a negative review by Michael Levin from a similar viewpoint. He too takes issue with the book because of his own particular stance. It would be fair to say that the book gives a point of view on a very general topic, within science and history, but is not directly concerned with any of the issues involved in racial IQ differences in the USA. Multiple other editors have agreed. As with evolutionary psychology, inserting this kind of content willy-nilly over wikipedia does not help readers. Mathsci (talk) 09:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the book mentions IQ tests is not relevant: the point is that the book is nothing to do with IQ tests or intelligence in general. The book is concerned with the very big-picture question of why certain cultures developed advanced technology and others did not. It discusses a wide variety of issues, such as the geographical fact that Eurasia lies east-west, while the Americas and Africa lie north-south (various very interesting ideas spring from that). Another significant issue concerns the fact that only certain animals such as cows and pigs have been domesticated, while some continents have no animals suitable for domestication. I believe there is one short paragraph in the prologue that mentions IQ. Using that paragraph as a reason to coatrack a psychologist's views would be UNDUE. Johnuniq (talk) 10:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop throwing WP:COATRACK around like it's relevant. WE HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT WHY IT DOESN'T APPLY. Note you still haven't answered the question. 1 paragraph can be important; it explains why he wrote the book. What is undue is giving no mention of the mainstream opinion on the topic the book is written for. 110.32.128.190 (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(a) Rushton isn't mainstream; (b) this has already been explained. Please see WP:IDONTHEARYOU. Stop disrupting this page. Guettarda (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could the IP please indicate whether he has edited through any named accounts recently, e.g. TheTrunchbull. (talk · contribs) Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guettarda, Rushton is more mainstream on this particular topic than Diamond is, as per the survey. This has already been explained. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I see no relevance of your link to anything going on here. Did you mean to link to the article I just linked to? Mathsci, that is a comment on editors and not on content, but since I will be generous, the answer is that I have not. 110.32.128.190 (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I find that rather hard to believe - Rushton is a psychologist, not a geographer, while Diamond, although a physiologist by training, holds is a professor of geography at UCLA. What's your basis for saying that Rushton's views are more mainstream in cultural or environmental geography than are Diamonds? Guettarda (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The IP address is also confusing significance and notability. Rushton is the most notable proponent of this particular point of view. But the point of view itself is a fringe point of view. Diamond's book is not especially original - his argument is really a synthesis of a good deal of well-established research in anthropology, geography, and history. He is not the most important figure in any of these fields (although he is as Guettarda points out a fully qualified geographer), but his work is the most notable synthesis of mainstream research. Mainstream, which is why Rushton doesn't make the grade. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at Rushton's bio and I noted that his argument is primarily an evolutionary ecology article. So even if you see this as an article about human evolutionary ecology, Diamond still wins hands down, given that he's been publishing on that topic since the 1970s, and has been very widely cited in the ecology and evolution literature. Guettarda (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about R&I! That's why I said "this particular topic". I am sorry I caused confusion, though it means we forget about the comments between this post and my previous one, right? 110.32.128.190 (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which is, of course, the problem. This article isn't about "race and intelligence". But even if it were, Rushton's theories are evolutionary-ecological...a topic in which Diamond's views are far more mainstream. Guettarda (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. We have been through this lots of times, and repeating your claim until everyone leaves doesn't make it true. I am not talking about Rushton's r/k stuff; that's not the point. And what "is, of course, the problem"? 110.32.128.190 (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you've made four edits total, it's difficult to see how it can be that "We have been through this lots of times" unless you are a sock of someone. Allow me to suggest that you either log into your usual account, or sign up for one, so we can avoid further confusion about the nature of an IP with four edits. aprock (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are now going waaaay of topic, but if you must. My User Contribs says I have made 4 edits because my IP shifted between Feb 22 and 24. Both me and Acadēmica Orientālis have "been through this lots of times" on this very page. 110.32.128.190 (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to again suggest that you sign up for an account. Keeping track of IP migration is something no one has time for. aprock (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are now going even further off topic (note you still haven't answered my question), but the reason I don't create an account is, as lame as it sounds, that I can't think of a decent name. 110.32.147.245 (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 110... it isn't about "race and intelligence". That's just reality. Read the book. Look through it's index. There's nothing there about it. Sure, we've got people saying that Diamond should have addressed their theories. But he didn't. And no matter how important Rushton is in the "race and intelligence" community, it's still a very, very minor community. GGAS might be a big deal to them, but from the perspective of GGAS, Rushton et al. are pretty small fish.

As for evolutionary ecology - you're mistaken. The ONLY way that race could be used to explain anything here is either through the prism of evolutionary ecology, or through a claim of separate special creation of each race. And whatever his flaws, Rushton does not appear to deny human evolution. Guettarda (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am now getting rather annoyed for having to refute the same thing over and over and over and over again. It's about race and intellegence because he says that is the main reason he wrote it. That's just reality. Read the comments. Evolutionary ecology: it does not matter why the mainstream opinion among psychologists is that the black/white IQ gap is partially genetic, since it is the case per WP:WEIGHT we need to include it as that's why the book was written. We can actually move this debate forward if you stop repeating yourselves and/or answer the question, which was: "Say you have piece of media that is reviewed well in the press, but supports a minority point of view. Are you to argue that Wikipedia's article on the media, whatever it is, should not contain any mention of the mainstream view of experts?" 110.32.195.250 (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is where the confusion is arising from. Generally speaking, why you say something is not the same thing as what you say. That Diamond's motivation for writing the book is different from what the book is about seems clear, though it appears you disagree. That's fine. The WP:DEADHORSE is quite dead. Further "refutations" are unlikely to be productive. But you are free to keep flogging. aprock (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So because you can't actually counter my arguments, your tactic is to say that no one's interested so therefor I should give up? On the matter of why he wrote the book, is there a Wikipedia policy that says we should only discuss what, not why? 110.32.155.179 (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IP hopping could be a way of evading sanctions for WP:TE. Mathsci (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romney Criticism

Is there a consensus not to include anything about the Diamond's criticism of Romney's take on the book. I think the edit that came after mine did a good job of contextualizing what the discussion was about. I think the point about it not being news was a good one, but I feel like it is still significant because it was a discussion of the book by a presidential candidate that the author choose to author a response in the New York Times. I'm interested in other people's take. Thanks! Dhawk790 (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to include it. It was not so much a "discussion of the book by a presidential candidate" as a passing mention in a speech by a politician trying to gain points. It gained enough buzz to merit a public rebuttal by the author. That does not mean this transient volley needs to be preserved for the ages in an encyclopedia article on a substantial work of nonfiction. If it still seems significant in six months, then it might be worth putting back in. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions from people with no expertise in the area are not suitable for an article, and this page is not the place to poke a politician. Johnuniq (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This item about a politician's not being able to understand the book belongs in the article about the politician. Here we need reviews of the book. GroveGuy (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to criticism

User:Causa sui recently tagged the Response to criticism of Eurocentrism and determinism section as original research. I'm inclined to agree and extend that to the whole Responses to criticism section. Its title would suggest it contains published responses to published criticisms of Diamond. In fact, it's exclusively an argument that Diamond "anticipates" or "answers" criticism in GG&S itself, and contains no citations to other published sources that substantiate this assertion. You can't respond to criticisms before they're made, so who is it exactly that's doing the "responding" here? – us, and that's clear OR. It may be that many criticisms of GG&S were based on strawmen or misreadings of it, but it's not our place to say that independent of the sources.

The section needs to be completely gutted and replaced by a summary of actual published responses to criticism of GG&S by Diamond or others, if those exist. (Actually I'd argue the article would flow better if the responses were put inline with the criticisms they refer to, not in a separate section, but that's getting ahead of ourselves.) joe•roetc 12:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. What we need to do is get rid of the criticism section overall. To begin with, it's overly long (about half the article; 10k or 21k characters of the 'readable prose') and that's clearly an "undue weight" issue. But apart from the issue of weight is the issue of writing a decent article. Criticism sections are just shoddy writing. The criticism sections of this article are especially bad. Guettarda (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japan and Guns

I added [unreliable source?] to the reference for the statement that Diamond is factually incorrect about the banning of firearms in Japan as the reference is a self-published source (a podcast). The Tokugawa did in fact put a ban on firearms (see: Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, and Conflict).--Ljfeliu (talk) 06:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vere Gordon Childe

Different authors are mentioned at various places in the page as having had similar ideas about materialistic explanations of European “superiority”, as opposed to racist explanations, or purely cultural. I feel Vere Gordon Childe is one of the most important in this regard and should be referred to also. -- Dominique Meeùs (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rushton again

A few hours ago, PK019 (talk · contribs) added some text with Rushton's thoughts on the book (which I removed). Now The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) has made their first edit to the article to insert a reworked version of the text (diff). The new paragraph was inserted under Guns, Germs, and Steel#Weaknesses in arguments with text:

Psychometrist, professor J. Philippe Rushton, criticized Diamond's characterization of the hereditary perspective as racist, saying the book did not give sufficient consideration to genetic explanations for differences in cultural achievement despite these differences overlapping with geographic variances in measured intelligence.[3]

  1. ^ http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1994egalitarianfiction.pdf
  2. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1016/j.intell.2005.04.002, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1016/j.intell.2005.04.002 instead.
  3. ^ Rushton, J.P. (September 1999). "Book Review of J. Diamond: Guns, Germs and Steel" (PDF). Population and Environment. 21 (1).

The edit summary was "insert in a rewritten fashion, the book directly addresses the theory of hereditary intelligence and Rushton worked in the relevant field".

It's a big book which I read a long time ago, but I am confident that the book did not "address the theory of hereditary intelligence". On this talk page (at "10:45, 23 February 2012"), I pointed out that the book is nothing to do with IQ tests or intelligence in general, and I provided an outline of what the book does cover (nothing to do with hereditary intelligence). I am putting all these thoughts here rather than just reverting again because it's likely that a longish discussion will be required, and we will have to repeat many of the points already made on this talk page. In brief, it would be great to hear what Rushton thought in the right article, but brief mentions in the prolog by Diamond of his mainstream view do not warrant a rebuttal by Rushton because the content of the book is nothing to do with intelligence or racism or IQ. Let's hear from a qualified author who has criticisms of what the book is about—the effects of geography on agriculture; the fact that very few wild animals can be domesticated; and lots more similar stuff. Johnuniq (talk) 11:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


For reference, here is what the prologue of Guns, Germs and Steel says about racism and IQ:

"The objection to such racist explanations is not just that they are loathsome, but also that they are wrong. Sound evidence for the existence of human differences in intelligence that parallel human differences in technology is lacking. In fact, as I shall explain in a moment, some modern "Stone Age" people are on average probably more intelligent, not less intelligent, than industrialized peoples. Paradoxical as it may sound, we shall see in Chapter 15 that white immigrants to Australia do not deserve the credit usually accorded to them for building a literate industrialized society with the other virtues mentioned above. In addition, peoples who until recently were technologically primitive-such as Aboriginal Australians and New Guineans-routinely master industrial technologies when given opportunities to do so.

An enormous effort by cognitive psychologists has gone into the search for differences in IQ between people of different geographic origins now living in the same country. In particular, numerous white American psychologists have been trying for decades to demonstrate that black Americans of African origins are innately less intelligent than white Americans of European origins. However, as is well know, the people compared differed greatly in their social environment and educational opportunities. This fact creates double difficulties for efforts to test the hypothesis that intellectual differences underlie technological differences. First, even our cognitive abilities as adults are heavily influenced by the social environment that we experienced during childhood, making it hard to discern any influence of preexisting genetic differences. Second, tests of cognitive ability (like IQ tests) tend to measure cultural learning and not pure innate intelligence, whatever that is. Because of these undoubted effects of childhood environment and learned knowledge on IQ test result, the psychologists' efforts to date have not succeeded in convincingly establishing the postulated genetic deficiency in IQs of nonwhite peoples."

Link to Google books

Intelligence is discussed throughout the book, and a later part focuses on The Bell Curve.

Link to Google books — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.0.71.26 (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained, Rushton was the leading proponent of the theory of hereditary intelligence. Diamond does focus on geography as a cause for higher levels of success, but he does this to raise a counter-point to the theory of hereditary intelligence or any notion of higher intelligence as a causal factor. Consider this interview Diamond did for PBS, where he mentions the claims of racial superiority pretty much immediately in the context of his book. In one instance when asked why the book sold well he explains it as thus:

The book has sold millions of copies because it grabs people, it addresses the biggest question of history; why history unfolded differently. It's a question that all of us ask and when we're teenagers its just obvious as you look around in your own country that different peoples fared differently in history. We ask ourselves the question but historians haven't told us the answer, racists have told us the answers and we haven't understood what is wrong with that racist answer and the result is that most of us then back away from the question. We think the question stinks. To raise the question means buying into the racist paradigm. I think that people buy the book because the question is such an interesting one, and because the answer is understandable and is substantially correct.

As noted above, the book's introduction, which you can see for yourself here, focuses explicitly on the point of observed racial differences in intelligence, with IQ mentioned specifically. Reliable sources also portray and understand the book as a rebuttal of claims about group differences in intelligence. In the Daily Telegraph: "Diamond first examines, then rejects, the hypothesis that there were racial differences in intelligence: a hierarchy of man, such as that in which the Victorian colonialists believed." In an article in the American Conservative:

The author, a professor of anthropology on the East Coast whose blog has accumulated a remarkable 8,800 Likes, suggested that my analysis might constitute a far more effective refutation of the “strong hereditarian IQ position” than those previously made by such notable academics as Jared Diamond and Stephen Jay Gould, whose “extremely weak rebuttals…would be dismissed, in a kind of ‘that’s all you have?’ sort of way.”

In other words, the book is regularly seen as a rebuttal to the hereditary view of intelligence and Diamond himself has made prominent reference to that view when discussing his book, with this also being the focus of his book's introduction. There are other sources noting this such as Guy P. Harrison's book Race and Reality. As this book is directly addressing claims of inherited intellectual differences and is seen as a refutation of the hereditarian view, it only makes sense to note criticism from someone who actually advocates that view.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:FRINGE - what Rushton thinks about Diamond's work isn't relevant "because Diamond is used to rebut Rushton". The fact that GGAS may be relevant to Rushton does not mean that Rushton's opinion is relevant to GGAS. Guettarda (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't include the views of random creationist to The Origin of Species no matter how often creationists attack Darwin. Guettarda (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FRINGE states: "Fringe views, products, or the organizations who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." This article clearly falls under that criteria and a single mention of Rushton's criticism is definitely not giving him undue weight. Your example is misguided on several fronts, but the most obvious front is that response from Darwin's creationist contemporaries would most assuredly be pertinent to the article on The Origin of Species. Rushton and Diamond are both contemporary credentialed academics in the relevant fields discussing the same phenomena and coming to different conclusions. Noting the response from hereditarians to a book that seeks to rebut their position is just common sense.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As best I can tell, there are no independent reliable sources which support Rushton's book review as a serious and prominent critique. Rushton's own review certainly doesn't qualify as independent. aprock (talk) 07:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Calling them "contemporary academics" doesn't change the fact that Rushton's views are fringe positions. Academics push fringe views all the time - look at the whole intelligent design community - but that doesn't make them mainstream. And it certainly doesn't make Rushton's views notable here. Diamond didn't write about Rushton, and the argument that Diamond's work is used to rebut Rushton only makes GGAS relevant to Rushton, it doesn't make Rushton relevant to Diamond.

Darwin may not have been the best example...so let's use a more contemporary one: the fact that Rich Lenski engaged with Andrew Schlafly doesn't mean that we add the exchange between Lenski and Schlafly to the E. coli long-term evolution experiment article or to Lenski's bio. We add it to the Conservapedia article, if we think it notable enough. Guettarda (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No that is not a good example. Schlafly was not an academic in the relevant field whose position the experiment was attempting to refute. He was just some random activist critic who disagrees with the results of an experiment that were simply following on from established science. Rushton was a credentialed academic in the field of psychometry, which deals directly with gauging intelligence and he was one of the leading proponents of the hereditarian view. You cannot rationally equate him to a random activist suggesting that well-established science is bogus or anyone else who suggests that actually. Diamond's position is not considered established science. Since his book is explicitly attempting to offer a counter-point to the hereditarian view it is pertinent to include Rushton's position on the book.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you have independent no source which establishes Rushton's review as warranting mention here. aprock (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such requirement. WP:FRINGE is rather explicit that what matters is if reliable sources connect a fringe view prominently to the subject. In this case there can be no dispute that the book is prominently connected to the hereditarian view as this book is presented as and seen by reliable sources as a rebuttal of that view. As a result, response from advocates of that view is appropriate to mention. Should you want a reliable source independent of Rushton that mentions Rushton's position on the book then you can see here. We could include that as a counter-point to Rushton's review.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually yes, it's a very appropriate example (and your failure to understand it suggests that you are operating under a misconception about Rushton's work which, his academic position notwithstanding, was fringe). But you're missing the main point entirely - Rushton's views of GGAS, like Schlafly's views of Lenski's experiment, are only notable to Rushton's followers.

Rushton's possession of an academic position is similarly irrelevant here - Michael Behe has a tenured faculty position, and probably has far more supporters, both in academia and among the general public. But intelligent design is still fringe. Rushton had his supporters, but his ideas were still seen as fringe (or, often, as far worse). See, for example here and here for some summaries. Guettarda (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, Lenski's experiment wasn't presenting itself as a rebuttal or counter-proposal to the creationist narrative or any variation on it. Darwin did that over 150 years ago. Lenski's experiment was furthering research on established scientific principles and people such as Behe and Schlafly criticizing his research is trivial. The cause of achievement gaps in different groups, however, is still a matter of considerable discussion with no settled theory. Diamond's book was presented and described as an attempt to refute or rebut one theory by putting forward an alternative theory. His book's introduction specifically discusses the IQ differences between groups that constitute the substance of Rushton's research. Even the blatantly slanted and unreliable source you give acknowledges that Rushton has published papers in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals touching on this very subject of group differences. The idea that he can be reasonably compared to ID advocates who have not gotten their views published in such journals is ridiculous and it is even more ridiculous to suggest that a single sentence noting his opinion is inappropriate when Diamond's book explicitly addresses Rushton's field of research, that is, differences in IQ between population groups.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. Just no. You're in "not even wrong" territory. But this isn't the place to correct your misconceptions.

Let's try this again: what source do you have to support your claims that Rushton's opinion is relevant to GGAS? Without WP:SYNTH. Guettarda (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no synth involved. Rushton did a review of the book that was published in a major scientific journal, making his opinion of immediately apparent relevance by right of that fact alone. What is being disputed is whether noting his opinion is consistent with WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE and I have already explained plainly why that is also the case as the theory he espouses is being directly addressed by the book itself and the hereditarian view he espouses is what the book seeks to refute or counter. I also provided this source a bit back where his review of the book and criticism of his review is included.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rushton did a review of the book that was published in a major scientific journal, making his opinion of immediately apparent relevance by right of that fact alone -
  1. Population & Environment isn't a scientific journal, it's a social science journal, and it's certainly not a "major" journal (it's impact factor is below 1.5)
  2. A book review isn't a peer-reviewed publication, and it's the lowest form of publication. It's the sort of thing graduate students do in the social sciences to get their name out there (and in the sciences book reviews have approximately no weight in your academic cv). More importantly, they almost never get cited (like this one, apparently).
  3. Anyone can write a book review. I could have written one of GGAS, and had I written a good enough one, and submitted it promptly enough, I might have had a review published. But that wouldn't mean that my opinion would have been notable.
I also provided this source a bit back where his review of the book and criticism of his review is included
  1. That's a 12,000-word article. You can't expect someone to read through it all to figure out what you're talking about
  2. Gil-White briefly - very briefly - quotes from (another) review that Rushton wrote (this one published in a newsletter) he does it to say that Rushton's critique of Diamond has no point. In fact, despite discussing both Rushton and Diamond at length, Gil-White never (as far as I can tell...it's over 12k words long) implies that Rushton's opinion has bearing upon Diamond's. The source pretty much makes my point... Guettarda (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this book review in a peer reviewed journal is relevant for several reasons, but I could make a similar point with more recent authorities. a) Diamond's starting point is that evidence of psychometric differences is loathsome and wrong. In fact Diamond's view is very much the minority view (see Snyderman Rothman survey 'IQ Controversy) - it makes sense to note that this criticism has been made. b) Diamond again puts the issue in question by making an argument about the intelligence of Papua New Guineans c) Rushton's book review points out that different environments may in turn favor selection for different behavioural traits which in turn impacts on rate of development (also see. 'The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution', 'Before the Dawn' by NY Times' science writer Nicholas Wade, Peter Frost anthropologist 'genetic pacification' posts, Greg Clark 'A Farewell to Alms'). Would it be preferable if I just noted the (c) criticism that the basic thesis of the book – that environments vary, but that wouldn't affect populations (eg. via gene-culture coevolution) – is dubious and contrary to empirical evidence? I could use a different source. PK019 (talk · contribs) 12:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been established that Rushton does not agree with Diamond, and that Rushton wrote a review to explain Rushton's opinion. What would be required for this article is an independent secondary source with a detailed article claiming that Diamond said X in this book, and that X was claimed to refute Rushton (that would make Rushton's view significant for this article). Furthermore, the source would have to make a credible claim that Rushton was promoting a non-fringe view. Perhaps Rushton is a 100% correct, but regrettably Wikipedia won't be able to push his views until the scientific community catches up. I have not recently read the book, but despite the mentions of racism in the prolog and bell curve in further reading, I am confident the book is not about intelligence (is there a secondary source saying otherwise?). Johnuniq (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is completely at odds with the actual wording of WP:FRINGE. When discussing whether to mention a fringe topic in a page it is only expected that reliable sources connect those topics. Diamond's book itself connects the book prominently to the fringe topic and thus noting Rushton's response is plainly acceptable. You are suggesting some labyrinthine requirements that exist nowhere on Wikipedia. As to secondary sources noting this book as being about intelligence, I have already provided several above in my initial response to this thread.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a great book, and I can thoroughly recommend reading it (although Diamond likes to lay it on a bit thickly, and the book would benefit from a 10% prune IMHO). It is true that people (including Diamond) have regarded the book as providing an alternative to the suggestion that whites do better because they have higher IQ, but the actual book really is about geography and domesticated animals. This article is about the book—it is not Controversy regarding Diamond's views. Johnuniq (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The underlying thesis of his book is that civilization developed at a different pace with different populations because of differences in their environment, rather than alleged differences in their biology i.e. alleged differences in innate intelligence. Geography and domesticated animals are simply some aspects of the environment that he analyzes in relation to how they impacted said development. He presents this view rather explicitly as a counter-point to claims about innate intelligence being the cause of that development.-The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Book review in a peer-reviewd journal" - but book reviews aren't peer reviewed. Guettarda (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


All this talk and nobody even pauses to mention that PK019 is an obvious single purpose account and very likely a sock puppet of a banned user. Just look at the previous discussion. It's the same stuff all over again.Volunteer Marek 02:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that previous discussion there was apparently still some mention of Rushton in the article. Since then it seems all mention of him has been expunged. The fact is that Rushton was a leading proponent of the hereditarian view on this question, a view which the book mentions prominently in its introduction. Having some indication of how a proponent of the opposing view received Diamond's work seems desirable in any academic coverage of the book.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be seriously misusing sources. I suggest you come up with some independent sources which establish that Rushton's view should be accorded any weight or put aside your nonconstructive argumentation. aprock (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The independent sources stating that the book is about rebutting or countering the hereditarian view are all that is need to establish that Rushton's view should be mentioned per WP:FRINGE. It is not according "weight" to his view, but simply allowing that the view of a hereditarian is worthy of mentioning in an article about a book that seeks to refute that view. My first comment already included sources that met the necessary threshold for inclusion provided by WP:FRINGE, at this point I am simply trying to accommodate other editors by trying to satisfy their personal thresholds for inclusion.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not "all you need". Diamond devotes about a page (pp. 18-19) to the "racist" explanation, in the 20-page prologue to an approximately 430-page book (exclusive of front and back matter). So to say that Diamond discusses this "prominently" is a bit of a stretch. More importantly, he isn't talking (much) about scientific racism, he's (mostly) talking about popular racism. Now, granted, you can use Diamond's book to rebut Rushton (as Gil-White and many others have done), but that doesn't mean that the book is "about" Rushton or his speciality.

The real problem though involves making the leap from Diamond to Rushton. Going from Diamond's statements to Rushton involves making a leap that's unsupported by a simple reading of the source. You can infer that he's talking about Rushton's work, or Rushton's kind of work, but we don't do things like that. That's where the WP:SYNTH problem comes in. In your opinion they're connected. But we can't go on the opinion of Wikipedia editors, we need sources that attest to the relevance of Ruston's opinion here. Guettarda (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Including Rushton's opinion on the book is not synthesis as his review is of the book. We would not be positing anything original in the article by including it. Synthesis does not apply to editorial discretion on the use of sources that concern the subject, but use of sources that do not mention the subject. The consideration here regards the inclusion of fringe views. We can establish with the book's contents and statements in reliable sources that the book is purposed as a counter-point or refutation of the hereditarian view, particularly in regards to intelligence. As such a review from someone who advocates that view is appropriate for inclusion per WP:FRINGE. It was not undue as I inserted it, since it concisely and neutrally noted his view with attribution. All the guidelines and policies plainly allow for mentioning his view on the book, so as it stands you do not have any policy-compliant reason supported by sourcing to justify keeping any mention from being included, while I have provided all the sourcing necessary to justify inclusion.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I urge people to actually read the book. It is nothing to do with "rebutting or countering the hereditarian view". I assume there is a webpage somewhere with that claim, and that's why we see the periodic excitement here, but the claim is just not correct. Perhaps rebutting some argument was Diamond's intention, but that intention is not in the book (which very clearly explains its purpose which is unrelated to rebutting anything). Johnuniq (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John, your opinion of what the book says or means has no bearing on this. We have many reliable sources, some of which I have provided, that explicitly describe the book as a refutation or counter to the hereditarian view on intelligence. However, even then, consider page 25 of the introduction where he writes:

Authors are regularly asked by journalists to summarize a long book in one sentence. For this book, here is such a sentence: "History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples' environments, not because of biological differences among people themselves."

I think the author's summary of his book in the prologue to his book holds some weight in determining what the book is about.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TDA, making this connection is WP:SYNTH. And saying "Rushton's opinion on the book is not synthesis as his review is of the book" is just WP:IDHT crap. I've already explained to you why that's false. Despite repeated request, from several editors, you have yet to provide a single source to support your view. Please stop wasting everyone's time. Guettarda (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for: I think the author's summary of his book in the prologue to his book holds some weight in determining what the book is about - this isn't "the author's summary". This is taking the author's summary, making a whole lot of other assumptions, and leaping to a set of conclusions not supported by the sources. Classic WP:SYNTH. Of course, all of this has been explained to you. Over and over. Please find an editor you trust and ask them to explain WP:SYNTH to you, since you obviously don't get it. Guettarda (talk) 06:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Rushton said

Rushton explained the situation accurately in his "review":

Diamond tells us ... the peoples of the Eurasian continent were environmentally rather than biologically advantaged. They had the good fortune to have lived in centrally located hornelands that were oriented along an east-west axis, thereby allowing ready diffusion of their abundant supply of domesticable animals, plants, and cultural innovations.

In his geographical determinist answer, Diamond ... joins the debate about group differences in intelligence. But you won't find any careful weighing of the evidence for or against his and other environmental, as opposed to genetic arguments in Guns, Germs and Steel.

Rushton could have more accurately said "you won't find any weighing of the evidence"—that's because the book is nothing to do with such arguments. The book provides what Diamond believes is an explanation for certain outcomes. Rushton apparently has another explanation—that's great, and that should be explained in some article about Rushton. It is Rushton's opinion that Diamond "joins the debate about group differences in intelligence"—but there is no such commentary in the book (there might be some mentions somewhere I don't recall, but there is no significant treatment—no weighing of the nature/nurture evidence). Rushton believed certain things about Diamond and his book, but his qualifications do not justify comments here per WP:DUE. Johnuniq (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a biogeographer applying his science to a question about humans, Diamond addresses a wide range of issues in the book. Though he's far better qualified than Rushton was to discuss human evolutionary genetics, he doesn't do so in the book, presumably because it's not relevant to his thesis. A good hypothesis uses as few explanatory variables to explain as much as possible. That doesn't mean that you need to address every other possibility (see, for example, Charles Mann's discussion in 1491 of the potentially additive role that genetics may have played in the "germs" explanation, which complements, rather than undermines, Diamond's thesis)...rather, the rule of parsimony tends to favour simpler explanations over more complex ones. Diamond undermined Rushton not by venturing into his world, but rather, by showing it was unnecessary. This doesn't make Ruston's view important, it makes it irrelevant. Guettarda (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Reception" and book reviews

The section on reception is still tagged and is rather short. There have been a large number of book reviews about GG&S in academic journals and elsewhere. Apart from reviews in the press, the reviews include:

  • Lincoln E. Ford, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, Volume 43, Number 4, Summer 2000, pp. 616-619.
  • Brian Ferguson, American Anthropologist, Volume 101, Issue 4, pages 900–901, December 1999
  • Christopher D. Merrett, Antipode, Volume 35, Issue 4, pages 801–806, September 2003
  • Stuart A. Vyse, Behavior and Social Issues, 11, 80-87 (2001)
  • Gale Stokes, The Fates of Human Societies: A Review of Recent Macrohistories, The American Historical Review, Vol. 106, No. 2 (Apr., 2001), pp. 508-525.
  • Lucy Jarosz, A Human Geographer's Response to Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Case of Agrarian Development and Change in Madagascar, Antipode, Volume 35, Issue 4, pages 823–828, September 2003
  • Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel in 2003, Antipode, Volume 35, Issue 4, pages 829–831, September 2003
  • P. A. Lamal, The really big picture: A review of guns, germs, and steel: The fates of human societies, Behav Anal. 1999 Spring; 22(1): 73–76.
  • G. Judkins, M. Smith, E. Keys, Determinism within human–environment research and the rediscovery of environmental causation, The Geographical Journal, Volume 174, Issue 1, pages 17–29, March 2008
  • James Shreeve, Dominance and Submission, NYT book review, June 1997
  • William H. McNeill, History Upside Down, New York Review of Books, [29] followed by correspondence with Jared Diamond [30]
  • Colin Renfrew, Human destinies and ultimate causes, Nature, Volume 386, Issue 6623, pp. 339-340 (1997)
  • T. Tomlinson, Reviews in history, 2009 [31]

Here is an article about the book that Diamond wrote himself for The Independent. [32] Mathsci (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Rushton review

Should this article include a brief mention of hereditarian J. Philippe Rushton's review of this book?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Support As I noted above, the book is often noted by reliable sources as a rebuttal or refutation of the hereditarian view, something indicated by Diamond's summary of his book's thesis and his statements in interviews. Per WP:FRINGE mentioning the view of a hereditarian is thus appropriate as that view is prominently connected to the subject by reliable sources. In addition Diamond's introduction specifically mentions group differences in IQ, which is Rushton's field, so his view on the book is particularly acceptable for inclusion per WP:FRINGE. I believe it appropriate and desirable to mention opposing views to the book, especially when those views are mentioned in the book and are seen by reliable sources as views the book seeks to refute.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:FRINGE says (emphasis mine):
Fringe views, products, or the organizations who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. However, meeting this standard indicates only that the idea may be discussed in other articles, not that it must be discussed in a specific article. If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether.
Guns, Germs and Steel is a very widely discussed book. What one fringe author has to say about it, even if his particular field of crankology is mentioned in passing in the work itself, has very little prominence considering its impact as a whole. It's a clear case of giving undue weight to the fringe author. joe•roetc 18:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the basic premise is WP:SYNTH. While the connection between GGAS and so-called "hereditarian" views (albeit thinly, since it's not the topic of the book), drawing from that the conclusion that "Ruston's opinion is relevant" requires extrapolation beyond what can be found in reliable sources. Several editors have asked TDA for sources that make the link, over the course of several days, and his response (including this RFC) has simply been WP:IDHT. Guettarda (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Clear misuse of sources contrary to WP:ARBR&I#Correct_use_of_sources Principle 3.1. aprock (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose TDA appears to be misrepresenting sources. Diamond's book concerns the impact of geography on human development, not psychometrics. Mathsci (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all opposers above. If enough good sources establish notability Rushton's arguments might possibly merit a very brief mention, but none seem to have been suggested so far. I note that GGAS (which I have read) consists of an alternative argument to hereditary Eurasian superiority, rather than a refutation of it. The present wikilinks in the lede, Race and intelligence and Heritability of IQ, are sufficient to address the issue. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This book is nothing to do with a "hereditarian view", and while Diamond's "geographical determinist answer" (quote from Rushton—search this page for more) may be taken as a refutation of something, there are no arguments for such a refutation in the book, despite a mention of racism in the prolog. To air Rushton's views here would be coatracking fringe commentary from a psychologist/psychometrician. I also oppose starting an RfC without addressing the detailed explanations already given on this talk page. If the topic Diamond vs. Rushton is notable, start an article (see Dawkins vs. Gould). Johnuniq (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sounds like the fallacy of balance is being invoked here. Why is Mr. Rushton a notable reviewer? Certainly his criticism of the book is not notable. Moreover, the book is quite long indeed, and refutes and mentions numerous other positions; giving space to each one would end up completely coatracking the article. siafu (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per my comment below I think we have a source which suggests that Lynn's ideas (and thus, by implication, Rushton's) are in fact, independent of and uncorrelated to Diamond's. Which, per WP:ARBR&I#Correct_use_of_sources Principle 3.1., should weigh heavily toward excluding Rushton's review from this article. Guettarda (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

Joe, it isn't just mentioned in passing, but noted prominently at the beginning of the book. The book itself is cast frequently as a rebuttal to hereditarian claims about intelligence as I demonstrated above. The material that was added involved a single sentence in this large article, that is hardly giving undue emphasis to his view.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ap, the material that I added was simply noting what he said in his review. No interpretation was involved so the principle you cite has no bearing on this question.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passing comment. As I explained to you here; trivially connected, as I explained here.
  • The book itself is cast frequently as a rebuttal to hereditarian claims about intelligence - this is the basis of the WP:SYNTH claim, and the WP:ARBR&I issue Aprock raised. By proposing a new, and more powerful model to "answer Yali's question", Diamond undercuts the "racial genetics" view. But he makes to attempt to confront that view - he merely acknowledges that it exists (and expresses his distaste for it). The nature of that whole world-view is irrelevant to Diamond's model - he isn't disproving it. His model supplants it because it is more powerful and better explains the data. The directionality is clear - GGAS may be important to Rushton, but Rushton is irrelevant to GGAS.

    It's possible to find sources that use Diamond's work to "rebut hereditarian claims", but that in itself doesn't mean that their views on GGAS are notable. A psychologist's (Rushton, Jensen, Lynn, Herrstein,...) or political scientist's (Murray) views on biogeography aren't particularly interesting, and the importance of their opinion isn't intuitively obvious. Hence the link to ARBR&I: interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material.

    The links you provided are editorials, not scholarly works, and thus should only be taken as "reliable" sources for the author's opinions. So there's the question of why I should care about Chivers' (a journalist) or Unz's (a businessman and political activist) take on this issue. Nonetheless, if you look at them, Chivers (incorrectly) says that Diamond "examines, then rejects, the hypothesis that there were racial differences in intelligence", while Unz quotes Jason Antrosio's assertion Diamond's rebuttal of the "strong hereditarian IQ position" is extremely weak. (Again, to be honest, Diamond doesn't rebut the hypothesis, he provides a superior hypothesis. But Popper's influence on our thinking is pervasive.) Taking these statements at face value still doesn't get us to Rushton. To get from Chivers or Unz to Rushton you need to introduce a whole series of assumptions - assumptions that we can't make unless they are referenced to a secondary source. Therein lies the problem - per the arbcomm, even before we consider whether Rushton's views are mainstream enough to highlight here (and they aren't) we first need to get from GGAS to Rushton, not from Rushton to GGAS. Guettarda (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know how many times I have to point this out, but multiple reliable sources have stated the book is a refutation or rebuttal to hereditarian claims. They have not merely used it as such, but stated it is such. There is no denying the existence of these sources that I have already provided, or denying what they say. Maybe you think they are wrong, but your opinion about what the book is really about has no bearing on this matter. However, if you wish for additional sources see the following: [33] [34] [35] [36]. All of these sources make the point of noting Rushton's views as contrasted with Diamond's views in the book.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Continued misuse of sources is only disruptive. The first and second links refer to footnotes for goodness sake. The third link mentions GGAS once in passing, and the fourth mentions Rusthon once in passing. This set of sources appears to have been cobbled together using google. aprock (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are not being "misused" as they plainly demonstrate that numerous reliable sources have explicitly contrasted the views Diamond expresses in the book with those Rushton expresses. You have made several mistaken remarks regarding the contents of those sources. The first source and third source mention Diamond in the text, and note GGAS in the footnote. It is not that the connection is in the footnote, the footnote just explains that the reference to Diamond is explicitly a reference to his book. The second source does involve a footnote, but it is a detailed footnote and explicitly mentions Rushton's review. The fourth source does not mention Rushton "in passing", but notes Rushton as a noteworthy advocate of an opposing view to that presented in Diamond's book. Not only have I provided sources indicating the relevance of the hereditarian view to Diamond's book, I have also provided sources that indicate Rushton's specific relevance to Diamond's book, in addition to the one I already provided some time ago.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What, pray tell, does the Mancall and Merrell ref "plainly demonstrate"? There are, apparently, 17 mentions of Diamond, but it's only showing me 3 - pp. 55, 77 and 80. None of these have enough context to show much of anything, but from the look of it they aren't the ones you're talking about. Since you obviously have the book, can you please supply page numbers so I can verify you claims? The library has a copy, so I plan to take a look at it tomorrow, but I need specific page references. Guettarda (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have the book, however the mention on page 77 is the relevant detail. The mention of Rushton is in the context of noting reviews as criticizing Diamond for "downplaying the importance of racial differences" in the book. However, it is the other sources that have more meaningful mentions.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? All I can see on p. 77 is "...actually criticize Diamond for downplaying the importance of racial differences". It's a sentence fragment lacking a subject. You post that in response to my request (per the arbcomm ruling) for secondary sources that get us from GGAS to Rushton. How does this sentence fragment achieve that? Guettarda (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, the other links you provided may be even less relevant. In the first one, Inrig says "Some, such as J. P. Rushton and Richard Lynn, have argued..." and, in the following sentence "Here, I follow theoreticians like Thomas Farley, Jared Diamond and L. Cavalli-Sforza in assuming..." Inrig makes no attempt to relate Rushton to Diamond, all he's doing is putting himself in the company of Farley, Diamond and Cavelli-Sforza. This is in way, whatsoever, indicates that Rushton's work has any bearing on Diamond's (or Farley's, or Cavalli-Sforza's). Using your logic, we could just as well use that reference to coatrack Rushton into an article on Genes, People, and Languages. Guettarda (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be cherry-picking the sources you address, going for the low-hanging fruit as it were since they are easier to dismiss, even if your reasons for dismissing them are not very compelling. All of the sources I have provided make it pretty clear that the hereditarian view is considered to be of considerable significance to the book and that Rushton's view specifically is seen as being part of that significance. The example you give of Sforza's book is not really relevant because, as far as I can tell, his book is not seen in such a way by reliable sources and Rushton did not do a lengthy review of the book either from what I can find.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 15:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cherry picking? 3 of 4 is hardly "cherry picking". I started with the one that Aprock raised. Since there's nothing there, I went back to the start of your list. And found that, once again, you're misusing sources. This is the sort of behaviour that's begging for a topic ban, especially on an article subject to arbcomm sanctions. Guettarda (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TDA, no one disputes the claim that Diamond's work is relevant to Rushton. We're asking for some evidence that runs the other way - that Rushton's opinion is somehow relevant to Diamond's work. Guettarda (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another source contrasting GGAS with hereditarianism is this book by Earl Hunt. Might it be better to cite that book instead of Rushton? That book discusses how GGAS relates to the concept of global IQ differences by contrasting Diamond's perspective with Lynn's, and says there is not enough data to decide between them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.0.71.17 (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it in that link. Can you specify a page number? The author index lists Diamond on pp. 309 and 444-445, neither of which make this contrast. A search for Guns, Germs and Steel shows up nothing (which may reflect what's accessible to me, I don't know). Again, the library has a copy, so if you point me to specific pages I can have a look. Guettarda (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's pages 444-445. The author first explains Lynn's perspective, then he introduces GGAS by saying "Using the record of historical events, rather than modern test scores, Jared Diamond has proposed a quite different scenario." He then explains Diamond's perspective, and says "We have two truly orthogonal explanations: the East-West one (Diamond's) and the North-South one (Lynn's idea of how latitude affects selective pressures on IQ). He then says he is more impressed by Diamond's ideas than by Lynn's, but Lynn's and Diamond's analyses both are "just so" stories, and knowing which is correct depends on data we cannot have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.0.71.9 (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see much we can use here. He supports what we've been saying all along - that Diamond's model isn't a rebuttal of Rushton and Lynn, it is, as Hunt says, orthogonal. If this were an article about the broader topic, it might be a useful source. But I don't see how we would use that here. Can you be more specific in what sort of an addition you're proposing? Thanks Guettarda (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's an orthogonal explanation of the same question. RockKnocker (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Aprock's comment above re WP:ARBR&I#Correct_use_of_sources. You have a relationship from A → B, and a relationship from C → B. There's no relationship implied between A and C...in fact, the very principle of orthogonality would suggest that Hunt is saying that there is no relationship between Lynn's ideas and Diamond's. They are, to quote the orthogonality article, "non-overlapping, uncorrelated, or independent objects of some kind" (with all the necessary caveats about quoting Wikipedia articles; I'm quoting because I like the phrasing, not because I consider the article to be authoritative). Guettarda (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The explanations are orthogonal. The question is the same. Your "ABC" stuff is meaningless. There is a question (0), and two orthogonal explanations (X and Y). RockKnocker (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word orthogonal. Guettarda (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one to look it up. It means "at right angles" or metaphorically "completely opposed". RockKnocker (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So no, you don't understand. Then look it up. Guettarda (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's you that doesn't understand, or pretends not to. RockKnocker (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is to say Diamond's perspective has been contrasted with the hereditarian view that European prosperity is because colder climates selected for higher intelligence. Hunt's book doesn't present either theory as a criticism of the other, but it contrasts them, so our article could also contrast them. If Hunt's book is cited, the content would go in a section of the article other than the criticism section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.0.71.21 (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]