= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DanArmak comments on When does heritable low fitness need to be explained? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (146)
We're interested in homosexuality that lowers fitness by making people not marry and not have children, in societies where same-sex couples are not accepted. A necessary condition is the lack of attraction to the opposite gender.
What exactly does "lack of attraction to the opposite gender" mean? How do you measure it?
Why is this important? The standard political definition of homosexuality is about self identification and not about attraction.
It's important because we're trying to make a definition of homosexuality-that-reduces-fitness. If fitness is not reduced, there is no need to explain evolution not reducing homosexuality rates.
It's not the political definition that anyone here is using. It's the meaningful one related to behavior.
Talking about the "political definition" is like turning up to a group of electrical engineers talking about "positive" charges and complaining that electrically charged things can give you shocks hence aren't very "positive"(political definition).
There not a single one but multiple different ones that you can pick that relate to behavior. That's why when having a discussion like this it makes sense to explicitly define terms.
This reminds me that people do complain about a related issue.