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

25 people work at Gumroad, but none full time.

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

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.

Here's a recent comment from the user dang: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34271566

And here's his page, where the comment can't be seen: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dang

---

And here's another comment, also from dang, where he talked about this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34264605

> this how HN's software works these days. We didn't do anything specific to the thread; it's just that users flagged the root comment.

It will show the dead, but not their children.

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

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

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.

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.

Nonetheless, as far as I can tell, you're presenting the case that there are significant genetic differences between black races and other races, in which case: why can't some of those alleles code for intelligence, and why can't that result in a difference in average intelligence?

Would you mind explaining this in more detail?

jasonhansel takes issue with the idea that there are racial differences in intelligence

You take issue with another, related, one of HBD's ideas: a specific ranking of races by intelligence that it advances.

I was only supposing that the first claim seems likely to be true, so I'm not sure that there has been any substantive disagreement between us on those two matters.