Profits, Prophets, Coaches and Kings by Jared Diamond review – how to change the course of history

Jared Diamond’s latest book, Profits, Prophets, Coaches and Kings, has sparked a mixture of excitement and criticism from scholars in various fields. As someone who has studied the intersection of creativity and circumstance, I was intrigued by Diamond’s central argument: that individual talent alone cannot explain success or greatness.

Diamond proposes his “Hamlet test,” which suggests that prominent individuals are uniquely talented if their work surpasses that of their contemporaries. He uses William Shakespeare as a prime example, arguing that no other Elizabethan playwright could have written masterpieces like Hamlet and Macbeth. However, this assertion is quickly undermined by the discovery that Christopher Marlowe, one of Shakespeare’s contemporaries, was not only a brilliant playwright but also likely collaborated with Shakespeare on several works.

The revelation raises questions about Diamond’s test and his assumption that individual talent is the sole determining factor in success. Circumstance plays a significant role in shaping an artist’s work – access to resources, social status, and luck all contribute to an individual’s creative output. By downplaying these factors, Diamond oversimplifies the complex interplay between talent and environment.

The debate over whether Shakespeare or Marlowe was the more talented playwright speaks to larger questions about creativity and influence. Was Shakespeare’s success due in part to his access to resources and social connections that Marlowe lacked? Or did Marlowe’s untimely death mean that his potential for greatness was never fully realized?

This discussion is not limited to Elizabethan theater. In many fields, we attribute success or failure to individual talent rather than acknowledging the role of circumstance in shaping outcomes. From entrepreneurs who launch successful startups with venture capital backing to artists who gain recognition through social media platforms, external factors can amplify or constrain an individual’s creative potential.

The implications of Diamond’s flawed test are far-reaching and warrant further exploration. It underscores the importance of acknowledging the complex interplay between talent and circumstance in shaping success. By downplaying these factors, we risk overlooking the role of systemic inequalities in limiting access to resources and opportunities for marginalized groups.

Diamond’s failure to consider alternative explanations for Shakespeare’s masterpieces raises questions about his own approach to understanding creativity and influence. Has he overlooked other possible explanations for Shakespeare’s success? Might there be other historical figures who could have achieved similar greatness with the right combination of talent and circumstance?

The legacy of Profits, Prophets, Coaches and Kings will likely be one of controversy and debate rather than consensus. Its failure to provide a nuanced understanding of creativity and influence serves as a timely reminder that success is rarely the result of individual genius alone but rather the complex interplay between talent, circumstance, and opportunity.

The world of art and commerce will continue to produce new masterpieces and innovative solutions. However, by neglecting to consider the role of systemic inequalities and external factors in shaping creative potential, we risk overlooking the true sources of greatness – not just the individual talents who happen to stumble upon it.