EDIT: I've just found out that Mr Gray doesn't believe in free will. I think that this might be an indicator of an underlying disagreement about basic facts concerning human behavior which makes much of any argument against Guns Germs and Steel futile. My point about the intellectual dishonesty still stands.

I'm a little late to the party, but here's my post on Mr Gray's podcast. This was originally typed on mobile, though since edited on a desktop, and Myers rum (it's kosher!) was involved, so pardon any issues. Also part of this might shift from 3rd to second person about grey. Sorry

CGP grey guns germs and steel (GGS) podcast notes

GGS discussion starts at 14:51 and ends around 70:00 podcast link

Dear reader, be aware that I tend to get somewhat passioned, am writing on my phone from 10 hand written pages of notes taken listening to CGPGrey segment on guns germs and steel and I'd hope you can look past the snark, and if you'd like, have a cordial discussion about the topic. THAT MEANS FOLLOW RULE FOUR MOTHERFUCKERS! Also I'd recommend taking the time to read the Wednesday thread on historiography as well. It is very enlightening to those who have not had any background in historiography, which is a vital and necessary part of history.

Let's jump right in. Be advised I'm not so sure of the timestamps because the playback on my phone was weird, but they should be roughly correct. Barring that, they are in chronological order from start to finish.

15:22 I am somewhat confused by Mr Grey’s presentation of this this as a debate between equally valid sides. One side consists of the overwhelming majority of experts in a field, while the other is mainly laymen. And yet he question the validity of the experts’ criticism. The only comparison which comes to mind would be climate change denial.

16:27 Calling GGS overly detailed? I'd like to think Grey understands that any thesis or hypothesis must be backed up by facts. Detail is good, it makes, or in diamonds case, breaks an argument. Though I would agree that GGS is poorly written in places.

19:15 Mr Haran seems to have a more skeptical view of the book, he does bring up that GGS is popular history, (also called pop-history). It was not held to the same scrutiny as a peer reviewed paper submitted to a journal. Diamond isn't even a trained historian. His doctorate is in physiology and biophysics, yet Grey accepts his work as equal to those trained in the craft. I wouldn't ask a landscape architect about fixing my car, so why is it OK to ask a biophysicist about history and anthropology?¹ What you get in any case is sweeping generalizations which may seem basically correct, but are so vague or self fulfilling as to be meaningless or unprovable.

22:15 Could it be that diamond is using a glorified gish gallop? He’s beating the reader over the head with a seeming preponderance of evidence supporting his case so you'll accept it rather than take the time to refute it all. Unfortunately historians have lots of free time collectively. Or are at least paid to write papers.

22:30-44 it's pronounced queue-ni-form

23:43 it's not just randos on the internet who debunk GGS, there are academic articles criticizing it.

James M. Blaut, professor of anthropology and geography at U Ill. Chicago

Brian Ferguson, Professor of Anthropology at Rutgers

Michael Barratt Brown, Economist and Historian

Also what's Grey’s obsession with the phrase “meta-argument”, pertinent clip I'm assuming he means the argument over the validity of GGS, which isn't the meta argument, which would be the argument over the argument over GGS, which is silly. Unless he’s calling into question the validity of rebutting Mr. Diamond's thesis there is no meta argument, just an argument.

24:00 there is nothing arguable, greychik, GGS does vastly oversimplify human history into a deterministic paradigm with no regard for human agency or politics

24:30 see the many linked wonderful deconstructions of GGS below

26:00 BCE my friend. BCE means the same as BC, but isn't and is the preferred dating method.

26:52 Look, don't want to harp, but those high school classes clearly didn't teach Grey the basics of academic historical study, that being historiography and the historical method. a textbook on the matter the issue is that historiography is very complicated and background heavy. Writing essays and citations and sources and stuff is comparatively easy. There was a very good thread on this on Wednesday February 3rd which everybody should read because historiography is really important. But so is the next point

27:00 THERE. IS. NO. OVERARCHING. NARRATIVE. TO. HISTORY. END OF DISCUSSION. NO UNIFIED THEORY OF HISTORY.

27:15 “the UK is just dominating in this history game” there is so much wrong with this statement on a fundamental level.

The UK wasn't inevitably going to be the dominant world power. No previous composite government with a central bank had been able to succeed, rather collapsing after debt crises. At the beginning of the 18th century mentioned a good deal of continental observers thought that it would be the century of a resurgent France, not UK.

History isn't a race. The UK isn't ‘better’ than Maori polities, or the Iroquois confederacy. European history isn't more valid than anybody else's, and the history of the rest of the world is more than “mud huts until slaughtered by mighty whitey and the communicable diseases”(insert band name joke here). There's no goal or end. There's no beginning either, save the extent of our records. History isn't a progression from the barbaric past to an enlightened future. That's very deterministic, which is bad and known as whig history. Marx was also very deterministic in his historiography. History the discipline simply attempts to record and understand the past (history the concept) to the best of our abilities. We do not, by and large, make judgments or deal in absolutes. History (both the discipline and concept) is not a ‘game’. Nobody wins. Nobody loses. Everybody dies.

28:10 the Columbian exchange brought new diseases to Europe. Off the top of my head, a new more lethal syphilis though it's still debated whether it was a more virulent firm or if something akin to syphilis was extant in Europe pre Columbus.

29:30 “two centuries of technological progress” I'm just curious how this is measured? Last I checked there wasn't an SI unit for technological progress, and technological development is very dependent on outside factors like utility. For example the wheel wasn't used much by the Inca outside of children's toys because it's not useful in their terrain. I recommend the SidMeyer for a unit of technological progress by the way

30:00 these analogies aren't great and are pretty reductive, which complicates things unnecessarily. I know you'd really like a neat and easy way to explain the last 12,000 years of human history. So would I, but there isn't one. History is one of those fields where there's no easy way about it. It's a real pain in the arse, but it's the truth. People are amazing complex creatures and we make a muddle of things all the time.

30:07 personally I'd say the Atacama Desert would be worse to start in, but that's not really how it works. I'd also like to question why European style culture is better than say, the myriad Australian Aboriginal cultures. There's a good number of statements of cultures being better or otherwise more valuable/valid which I don't appreciate.

32:00-32:30 seriously? The modern Cow was bred from 6 foot at the shoulder violent bovines called Aurochs which ate Beech trees. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs the reason cows etc are so chill is because we've been domesticating them for 8-10k years.

33:10 see aurochs comment. Wild animals are unpredictable and violent. Domesticated animals are sheep. Literally. It was one of the first domesticated animals.

33:33 horses have been domesticated for at least 5000 years. Of course they're going to be tame. That said feral horses are nasty shits.

35:37 yes we historians like to argue the details. You refute a hypothesis in part by proving that the evidence supporting it is faulty.

36:29 “how could it be otherwise if you have a semi random distribution of useful animals across the world” I don't think it's correct to call the evolution of certain species random, or even semi random. They evolved as a result of evolutionary processes which I will defer to an expert for the explanation of.

37:00 good point Anglo-aussie man! Diamond is going about his thesis ass backwards!

38:12 another good point anglosphere man

39:22 again, syphilis. Which came either in whole or part from the Americas.

40:53 why don't I have a hard on for GGS? because it is deterministic, simplistic, both vague and overcomplicated, removes human agency, and is so off base its not even wrong.

41:00 there is no unified narrative of history. We humans, we like to put things into patterns to understand them. It's called apophenia. We want to find an explanation for why things happen the way they do. But there isn't an easy cut and dry answer like diamond posits. There is no one consise explanation for why things are the way they are.

41:10 like the ‘theory’ of creationism, diamonds theory of geographic determinism is crap! Plus it's worked back from the present presupposing that the events that happened are the most likely (which we can't know), so it's a self fulfilling prophecy, because it's already been fulfilled.

41:20 counterfactuals, or “what-ifs”, are unprovable guesses and not really helpful. It's why however well researched and meticulously written alt history is always fiction, and you can't cite it in an academic work.

41:40 what is colonial technology? The modern European period of colonization goes from the 15th to 20th centuries. I know I am harping for being vague, but being specific helps to understand what point you're trying to make.

43:30 I consider myself a historian. I'm working on an M. Litt in modern history at St Andrews. I can tell you, and I'm sure my esteemed comrades on this subreddit could also, that historians DO NOT work with destiny. That isn't my discipline. You want destiny, try philosophy or divinity. But to imply that anything in history had to happen a certain way, is not in line with any kind of contemporary accepted historiography I know of. When you say that geography implies destiny you're removing all agency from the actual people who lived and loved and died. Among other issues brought up by those with a more thorough understanding than I.

44:55 Goodness gracious, Mr Gray! I've would think that it would be understood that history is not like physics and there isn't a unified theory of history. In fact I'd like to posit that a unified theory of history is impossible without drastically over simplifying a great deal.

45:01 that is so very vague though? It doesn't provide any useful new interpretational paradigm to view history though, instead taking the people who made history and relegating their lives and actions to inevitable results of invisible forces beyond their control, and shifting the blame for colonialism to geography rather than asking deeper questions about European society at the time.

46:10 Let me reference Marc Bloch. Just him in general. Pick up a copy of his book the historian's craft. He's one of the central figures of modern historiography. Also a french Jew who was killed by the Nazis for working with the Maquis

47:33 the effects of the black death in Europe are really interesting. I would recommend looking on JSTOR.

49:29 Hindsight is always an issue. We call it presentism. (https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/may-2002/against-presentism)

50:01 the term "orientals" is no longer socially acceptable. I would suggest saying Asians.

51:07 http://www.jstor.org/stable/3790464 here. Read this.

51:25 race is a social construct. I presume you mean ethnicity?

51:45 you want an alternate theory? Here's mine. I'm no fancy Physiologist like Dr Diamond, but: Human history is so complex that to reduce it to one unified theory would be nigh impossible, and even if possible would not be useful in understanding the past, and would oversimplify and remove agency by imposing narratives on the past rather than letting it speak for itself. Also thanks for implying I'm racist for disagreeing with GGS.

52:42 you're going to be left wanting, Mr Grey. As I've said multiple times, there is no narrative to history but what is imposed on it. There is no unified theory of history, and to my understanding of current historiography such a concept would be antithetical to history as it is understood today. Unless you want to say “god did it” or otherwise remove agency from people though vague and reductive postulates, it is my understanding that you ask the impossible. Thousands of years and billions of people cannot be boiled down into a “theory of history”. Life is too complex. There are too many variables. It would be awfully convenient if it could be done, but it can't. I'm sorry Mr Gray, there is no theory of history.

“Let's not get down in the weeds… Argue about the details” Mr Grey, those weeds, those details, that is what history is made of. Not grand sweeping claims about inevitable laws, but the lives of everyday people. People like you and me. But also people other than white men. Marc Bloch talks a great deal about creating lines of connection with the past to further understanding. The history of people, not just big institutions. Oh and yes, historians are going to try and disprove the evidence behind theories. That is how you disprove a theory.

53:52 more counterfactuals

54:07 yes, history is what happened

54:30 look if you want relatively simple answers why things happen talk to a Rebbe or a pastor or a philosopher. This is history. History is messy. It's complicated. Very little is cut and dry. About the only things I can think of are Nazis=bad and CSA=slaveholding dicks. A great deal of history is nuance and pedantry. A really good first step is to stop trying to assign big narratives.

55:16 you might have been moving the goalposts here, just a little. Going from a nice big theory to wrap everything up in a bow to now only covering certain things.

55:26 “as soon as civilizations interact” because that never happened before 1492?

55:46 this question cannot be answered

56:25 like geocentric models of the solar system its a dead end that seems promising at the start. The sun rises and sets right? So clearly is orbiting around us.

57:35 just to question, how did the aborigines get to Australia without boats then? Did they fucking swim? How can you invent boats 200 years early when you needed boats to get to where you're living?

58:40 look up peshawar lancers. Right in that vein

59:55 humans have been living in Australia for at a minimum 40,000 years. There was an indigenous group living where Adelaide is, the Kaurna for quite a while before the Europeans showed up.

60:35 it'd really make my life easier if I could just plug information into a theory and spit out history, instead of all the research and sourcing I do now.

60:43 this discussion about the use of history… just go read the Marc Bloch book.

61:00 please, do I really have to defend the validity of my discipline? Engineers don't have to put up with this shit. Grumble grumble.

61:30 GGS is based on shoddy evidence. The thesis rests on a foundation of shit. [Here](Guns, Germs, and Steel - Chapter 11: Lethal Gift of Livestock) are some posts explaining why it's bad. Also see the Wednesday thread and previously linked JSTOR articles.

62:42 you keep defending this theory. The thesis, however valid, is based on crap methodology, shit evidence, and inconsistent writing. GGS doesn't support its thesis very well. Therefore, based on the available evidence one must conclude it is invalid until such a time as better evidence comes along.

62:56 so this was all a gotcha to piss me off? WELL YOU DID YOU BERK! I'M WELL AND PISSED OFF.

63:34-64:00 so for the sake of a giggle you were intellectually dishonest to over a million people? What's your next video gonna be? The holocaust based on David Irving? The story of the Sherman tank DAMNABLE YANKEE RONSON DEATH TRAP by Y. Belton Cooper? Your joy from trolling a few people compromised the unwritten compact between you, purveyor of seemingly factual information, and the viewer. Research even a modicum. Ask an expert. There's no shame in not knowing. I'm sure you're aware of that, and you say you did your homework in GGS. You said you knew of the issues with the book yet you “jokingly” recommended it as the history book to end all history books. How many people do you think took you seriously? I'd wager several hundred thousand. Your viewers trusted you, many of them still do, and you lied to them. That's not integrity or honestly, that's no better than the Sun or the Daily Heil. You may not realize it but as an authority figure you must be honest and accountable. I think you're a good person inside. I know you have a busy schedule, but you could use this as an exercise in demonstrating that its OK to be wrong. Or something. But you cannot break the faith your audience had in you, their expectations of honesty, well researched, thorough and correct answers.

That's my two cents. Just thought I'd mention it. Please feel free to comment/PM with any problems, I haven’t caught.

EDITS: removed 41 possible rule 4 violations. Don't write drunk kids.

EDITS II: fixed things, made pretty, reposted

1. Landscape architect is like a gardener but fancy and a degree