But this thread actually causes me to reposition him. I still don’t think bio-determinist is quite right, but I see where that is coming from better than I would have.

Whether that qualified as higher intelligence overall was a bigger question. And tough to test.

It would be skewed by the fact that urban civilization has the capacity to observe, record, and study all environments and to maintain people actually pre-trained to deal with them, at least to a degree.

But if you took an otherwise healthy and fit American who has hunting and survival experience in America, maybe gave him inoculations to remove the disease factor, and dropped him into upcountry Papua, and then took a healthy and fit Papuan who maintained traditional skills but had comparable sporadic exposure to urban environment in Port Moresby, and dropped him into Los Angeles, give him any inoculations if there are diseases Papua hasn’t seen. Remove the fact of language. Or maybe leave it in and give neither any instruction.

Which would be more adaptable?

It would probably be at least comparably unfair to drop an American like me [fat, urban, unfit...] into Papua, or a tribesman never off the Papuan mountains into LA. So I went for a median.

Have I skewed the test wrongly? Thoughts?

And, when biology can start explaining the results of things like those freaky twins studies…then start yammering to me about how it is that the New Guineans never developed past the tribal stage, and spent a lot of their time cannibalizing each other. Me, I’m going to look at all that and start wondering if there really might not be something to the claims of genetically-based culture and civilization features in the genome.

We simply do not know enough to be making these grand pronouncements that Diamond is so wont to do.:

This in spades!

One of the things in Guns Germs and Steel I could never reconcile is his Bullshit about how intelligent the though the natives of New Guinea were, simply on the basis that could solve the immediate problems of survival in that environment, and he assumed that he could not.

Granted, they lived in a place with poor soil etc., but it was tropical! You barely need clothes, and while it is a lot of work to process sago, there is lots of it. As an alumnus of several survival and bushcraft schools and courses, I’m not particularly impressed by New Guinea, they don’t have any particularly unique talents of techniques than those you would find in any typical hunter-gatherer, or early agricultural society.

This! I have commented before of this same topic that his idea of geographic factors (climate and availability of domesticatable livestock is interesting and plausible, enough that I bought the book, but he lost me by attributing EVERYTHING to this, rather than making it just another (albeit interesting and compelling) factor.

Yeah, some of what he’s got to say makes sense–On the surface where he’s stuck with the rest of us. What’s going on out in the deeps? Who the f**k knows?

There’s enough really weird stuff in the biome to make you go “I don’t think we know enough to say anything for sure, right now…”.

And, when biology can start explaining the results of things like those freaky twins studies where the twins are separated at or near birth, and yet have terrifyingly parallel lives, down to the dates they broke their legs in ski accidents? Show me you have some understanding of the genetics behind that, and then start yammering to me about how it is that the New Guineans never developed past the tribal stage, and spent a lot of their time cannibalizing each other. Me, I’m going to look at all that and start wondering if there really might not be something to the claims of genetically-based culture and civilization features in the genome.

We simply do not know enough to be making these grand pronouncements that Diamond is so wont to do. His BS about Easter Island soured me on his work to the point where I won’t waste my money to have a charlatan preach at me.

A few very good bio-determinist points ruined by excess reliance on them (“This explains EVERYTHING!”) and mostly ignoring the consequent political / cultural / genetic feedback loops and awkward exceptions.

He’s an example of a “scientist” who thinks argument is piling up “evidence” rather than finding a theory which is least contradicted by observable data.

I’ve had time for Taleb and for the 10000 hours guy whose name has genuinely slipped my mind, suggesting the weakness of his media strategies. I can see his face and hair. Still no name.

But time aside, we are really awash in this sort of pop theorizing about everything the past couple of decades.

I can’t decide if it’s just a continuation of the pop history and pop social science that was always around, a welcome expansion of debate outside the confined of increasing inward academic departments, or a mark of our increasingly nutty search for overarching simple pet theories.

Or maybe all those things.

Diamond’s treatment strikes me as superficial, trite, and couched in terms to make his arguments look good, with limited real respect paid to the realities of things as experienced by Finland and the Finns.

This is one of those cases where you wish you could deliver a metaphoric slap to the face for the author, and tell them to go find some other example, this one is for the grown-ups to discuss.

The Finns certainly had to make hard choices to maintain their independence.

I am most struck by the flight and treatment of the Karelians, which speaks well of them and of the rest of Finns, although complete evacuation of a disputed territory oft times saves your lives but does the enemy’s work. No need to genocide or even oppress if everyone has left, and any future irredentist claim becomes pointless. The wisest course, though, when the enemy is unlikely to ever yield or be weak enough to retake the land.

Also, the rarely remarked need of the Finns to turn on and then fight the Germans in the far north. I was vaguely aware of it from some past reference, but have never seen any account of it.

And lastly, a notably measured attitude by Stalin to take conscious notice of the Finns’ attitude on Leningrad and to actually reciprocate by holding back. Although later revelations about how the Soviets penetrated Finnish government and society support the contention there was little need to annex it.