garbagetime

> it is definitely not unbiased.

Can one really reach that conclusion from your evidence? A person can recieve sponsorships without allowing that fact to influence the person's writing.

Nevermind

How exactly does one go about signing this pledge?

Nope. His work on the questions of the nature of thought, language, and mind is both extremely influential & deeply philosophical.

Some of his work on linguistics you can argue is not philosophy. Some I think clearly is.

I would say his work in linguistics is philosophy.

Simple explanation, I'm afraid: I was dumb.

There are no exceptions (...at least, none that I'm currently aware of). Dang's "missing comment" actually is on his page, just not where I was looking.

The comment was new, but it was a descendant of one of dang's older comments, so it appears further back in his profile than where I looked.

I don't think that works.

It will show the dead, but not their children.

It's not apparent to me.

HN users tend to think similarly to each other and are often wrong.

Have you read the papers? Might be they're good, but rejected for dumb/annoying reasons.

Exagerating about these things is a personality trait, not a mental illness.

Maybe the papers are totally crank, but as I said, not immediately apparant

It's not apparant to me. Cancer claim seemed like a conditional one.

I acknowledge that the word 'race' is used in many ways. But in the context of HBD we can probably limit ourselves to those definitions rooted in biology.

I did not invent the definition I gave, though it is written by me. I suppose it is closely related to the standard definition of race in the sense we are discussing it.

Here's the first definition of the word "race" in the 1979 New Zealand English dictionary I have on my desk in front of me:

>a group of people having or supposed to have common ancestors and with similar physical characteristics

Which is close enough to my definition, albeit more general and less descriptive.

You may find that definitions similar to this are rarer these days. This is because there was a massive push in the late 20th century against race being a biological reality. A social understanding of race was promoted in its place. This push was based on such wild and undeniably false claims such as:

> data also show that any two individuals within a particular population are as different genetically as any two people selected from any two populations in the world

These claims have evolved since then, but as far as I can discern are roughly equally (though less obviously) false.

P.S. I'm not trying to retain your interest. If you don't find the subject matter of our conversation interesting enough of itself (as I do), then I don't want you to go out of your way to continue this conversation.

If you asked them to list races, they might give those out of some habit, though I doubt anybody seriously considers those to be races.

I mean, do people really think that the Han Chinese, the Persians, the Hindu Indians, etc., are all of the same race? No. People are aware there are various African, European, Asian, etc. races.

Why do you want a source? Just think about it. How could race be anything else?

Yes, many humans cannot be sorted into any one race. They have ancestors of various races.