Tweet
Originally posted by TCO
He claims genetic intellectual superiority of New Guineans.
He claims genetic intellectual superiority of New Guineans.
-
I don't think so. The point he was making about the New Guineans is that intelligence is relative. The NGs developed a high level of intelligence to survive in their environment. We tend to ignore that intelligence and look upon them as undeveloped. The old ignorant savages bit.Golfing since 67 -
My major issue with Diamond is that he argues based on repetition. And that he disdains statistics or multiple regression. It's as if he wanted to prove that nutrition was the only factor affecting longevity and then told you a million stories of how starving people died (and the converse). The issue is that this does not isolate for the other variable.
(For the Texans) It's as if he wanted to prove that the passing game is the key thing that determines a football champion and gave a million examples of how good teams had a great QB and the converse. Maybe even showed a statistical correlation between good yardage gained in the air and winning (actually wait, that would involve math and be beyond him). But never showed a multiple regression to prove that rushing prowess was irrelevant. And of course, this would be leaving the defense entirely out of the question.Comment
-
Be nice, math is beyond me too. I just make nice bowls in pottery...Comment
-
That's fine. Just bow down.Originally posted by Elok
Be nice, math is beyond me too. I just make nice bowls in pottery...Comment
-
I quoted the man above where he says exactly that.Originally posted by Tingkai
I don't think so. The point he was making about the New Guineans is that intelligence is relative. The NGs developed a high level of intelligence to survive in their environment. We tend to ignore that intelligence and look upon them as undeveloped. The old ignorant savages bit.Comment
-
dp"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
The nature of history isn't very quantifiable. The bit on his experience on New Guineans wasn't meant to actually be part of the meat of the book (which is academically sound and as quantified as it needs to be IMO), just some personal anecdotes to show that being a hunter-gatherer doesn't prove one is less intelligent. It's pop anthropology, not an academic paper. My main problem with the book is that the quality of writing was rather bad (too much repetition, hammering in simple points, etc.).My major issue with Diamond is that he argues based on repetition. And that he disdains statistics or multiple regression. It's as if he wanted to prove that nutrition was the only factor affecting longevity and then told you a million stories of how starving people died (and the converse). The issue is that this does not isolate for the other variable."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
It's a fault of logic to assume that proving one cause is significant disproves others. See the football anology, Tejas man. Or run a few multiple regressions. You don't need to do the math to understand the concept.Comment
-
And wrt his comment about NG being smarter than Westerners, there is nothing to stop testing on that hypothesis. Instead we have his general impression. Great. So he beleives himself. What a miracle of argument and explication.Comment
-
I mean this is a case, where his assertion is amenable to testing. But he doesn't bother. He is a lightweight.Comment
-
It's meant to be anecdotal, not rigorous. That isn't what the book is about."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
GG&S is an excellent book. TCO needs to get over his "he complements the evil saavges, it must be motivated by the left blah, blah, blah."
Comment
-
Odin, have you even read TCO's comments? Your remarks are WAAAAAY out of line and are completely unwarranted. One expects better of you.Comment
-
Don't have a problem with plausible arguments. He just overstates his thesis. Proving (giving him credit here) on factor does not disprove others. Read some books on social science. It will give you a feel for this issue. My major kvetch is not with the lack of math to prove his hyptothesis but with extending one-factor causation to negation of other factors.Originally posted by Ramo
It's meant to be anecdotal, not rigorous. That isn't what the book is about.
Here is a good book to read through. It actually points out the limits of statisticial analysis. But not in a methof of lets throw them away. (Just like a critique of X-ray cxrystallography would not say, let's go back to pulling molecular structures out of our azz.)
Comment
-
I am suspicious of the reasons he is dissing the book, it seems that he can't admit that us europeans are no better than anybody else. Him being a conservative and a southerner makes it seems he has an ideological bone to pick.Originally posted by JohnT
Odin, have you even read TCO's comments? Your remarks are WAAAAAY out of line and are completely unwarranted. One expects better of you.
Oh, It was skywalker that said the book was full of PC.
My response is, I DON'T THINK SO! 
Comment
Comment