3 ms·
I agree that calling this "settled science" is problematic, but a large point of the book in question is to introduce new evidence from the epoch in question th
by haswell 4y ago
I agree that calling this "settled science" is problematic, but a large point of the book in question is to introduce new evidence from the epoch in question that directly challenges some of the common narratives, especially Pinker's.
It's a thought provoking book worth reading.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> new evidence from the epoch in question that directly challenges some of the common narratives, especially Pinker's “Challenges” and “theory” may be better terms than “dispels” and “ideological myths,” then.
- MichaelZuo 4y agoI've noticed more and more often that many commenters on HN simply don't read the parent comment.
- JumpCrisscross 4y agoNot sure if directed at my or the preceding comment, but I’d note that the top-level comment states “social abundance” in pre-historic times is “settled anthropology and biology.”
- kjs3 4y agoIt's considered rude when someone attempts to speak for the entire reader-base on HN.
- MichaelZuo 4y agoThis is the second identical reply you made to one of my comments, so this seems a lot like low effort trolling instead of an honest mistake. The other one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34785689 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34785689 It's odd that someone with a 2013 account and a decent posting history would choose to self-destruct like this. So I'm inclined to believe the account got hacked?