It's a problematic work. From what I remember from my time on /r/askhistorians, they really did not like it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/wd6jt/what_d...

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/historians_views...

https://web.archive.org/web/20210619035356/http://www.columb...

My impression is that it is correct enough the look good on surface. Like learning Freud, you see his points, it makes sense, but the details are wrong and so you spend most of your time learning why he wasn't exactly right.

It's been awhile since I've read it, but it does offer a similar approach in the sense that it's an easy read. Bret does a good job of making the various topics fun and interesting, even in areas I normally wouldn't be interested in.

As a side note, I've read some interesting critiques on Diamond's theories. But I did find the whole book to be an interesting perspective, even just thinking about things North America lacked such as animal husbandry that may have drastically changed the way it developed.