Read the rest of my post and you'll see the problems with what is being put forward here.
Why did you cut out the part about culture? Why are people upvoting this fucking trash? He offers a biological analysis as part of the reason. Everybody here assumes he therefore believes it is the only reason.
That phrase is thrown into the description and doesn't change the weakness of his theory, which seems to imply that the "biological temperament" of people, a concept that seems based mostly on "shit I've projected people from X civilisation based on some lab work I've done on people now", is the driving force behind massive historical processes and changes. The other things he's come up with in the Telegraph article display at least a semi-belief in eugenics that makes him look a fool.
His interpretation of "cultural interplay" with our biology is bollocks. The guy claims that World War Two happened because the combatants mothers had high levels of anxiety during World War One, for god sake.
People promote this willful misinterpretation of his argument and act like a bunch of triggered tumblrinas going "omg!!! wow!!! ugghhh!! what!!!???" for echochamber points. Are you not ashamed by how blinkered you all are?
It isn't a "wilful misinterpretation". However you raving on about "triggered tumblrinas" is a big sign already that you're probably a bit of a fool. Tell me, how many megaSJW's am I radiating right now?
It's pretty obvious what's happening here. Everybody here has been completely trained and ideologically indoctrinated into attacking without consideration any thought, speech or statement which could give rise to the idea of biological determinism.
Indoctrinated? What, because they disagree with the idea due to its various historical and scientific faults? Come off it. As someone else has pointed out elsewhere in the thread he doesn't even get the science right with his ideas on genetics.
Just because you don't want genetics and biology to be a factor in something, doesn't mean they're not.
I don't think I've ever said genetics/biology isn't a factor in anything at all, I think I've said that Penman's theory of its involvement in human history is nonsense. That's a perfectly fair argument and you've done a good job of completely avoiding any of the points I've made, instead just accusing me of making up a strawman (ironic) and calling me intellectually dishonest.
You can't just wish reality into something more pleasing to your blank slate ideology you know.
Like Penman has with his ridiculous theory that attributes the wrong causes to major historical events, just to support the "legitimacy" of biological determinism and biochemists being appointed rulers of the Earth for the good of us all?
But no, of course, a handful of snarky undergraduates who have not even read this book know far better and will call a guy with a PhD a racist because he uncomfortably challenges their egalitarian dogma.
The guy a moron and I will absolutely call him out on it. What has been regurgitated here about British history was my original complaint, and perhaps if you'd read the whole post you'd see where my problems lie. At badhistory we defer to academic consensus usually because its the logical thing to do; but this isn't a widely accepted theory, it is based on incorrect historical knowledge and it doesn't have the support of consensus. The man shouldn't be beyond questioning because he has a PhD. But I'm sure you'll shut up about anything you think ever if a single PhD disagrees with you on it, right? I'm sure we could find a few if you told us everything you believe because you sound like a twat right off the bat.
you all oughta be ashamed of yourselves. in fact you should all go outside and shoot yourselves right now.
You're an idiot and a troll. Please kindly evacuate your brains onto the nearest wall.