Lumifer comments on When does heritable low fitness need to be explained? - Less Wrong

15 Post author: DanArmak 10 June 2015 12:05AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (146)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Lumifer 12 June 2015 05:28:54PM 1 point [-]

So, are you basically saying that the current Western concept of a being gay is mostly the result of identity politics?

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 12 June 2015 09:42:14PM 2 points [-]

If you want some more fun with the subject, check out Hanne Blank's Straight which argues that the identity of heterosexual is a fairly recent thing-- only about a century old, as I recall. Previously, people thought in terms of sexual behaviors, not identities.

Comment author: V_V 13 June 2015 10:36:19AM 2 points [-]

Obviously, the heterosexual identity can only exist in contrast to the homosexual identity. If a group of squid people suddenly appeared on earth, you could bet that a vertebrate identity would develop pretty fast.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 13 June 2015 02:52:14PM 1 point [-]

Obviously, the heterosexual identity can only exist in contrast to the homosexual identity

That may be obvious if you think about it, but I, at least, hadn't thought about it, and found it to be surprising. I'm willing to bet that I'm more typical on this point.

Comment author: V_V 12 June 2015 08:26:13PM *  1 point [-]

To some extent probably it is: the gay identity historically arose as a reaction against the previous negative view of homosexuals as people affected by a mental disease. Indeed the word "gay" was chosen specifically to avoid and reverse the negative connotations of "homosexual".

To some other extent, it is probably be a result of Western societies becoming more wealthy, democratic and individualistic, therefore individuals feel more free to follow their preferences rather than social expectations of their family/clan/state.

Comment author: DanArmak 12 June 2015 09:35:51PM -2 points [-]

I don't think that's necessarily implied.

Obligate homosexuals probably always existed, we just can't be sure if it was at the same relatively high rates as today. But only recently have they organized socially and politically to demand equal rights. As part of this movement, homosexuality became an important part of their identity, and formed a group identity, and so the social and psychological character of how people express their own homosexuality changed. But that doesn't mean the core features of being attracted to people of the same gender, and not attracted and unwilling to have sex with members of the opposite gender, changed.

I see this as similar to the historical emergence of nation-states. A medieval peasant didn't consider being French an important part of who they were, didn't have a French citizenship. But they still lived in France and spoke French; in that sense there were Frenchmen then just as today.

Comment author: V_V 13 June 2015 10:50:25AM 2 points [-]

A medieval peasant didn't consider being French an important part of who they were, didn't have a French citizenship. But they still lived in France and spoke French; in that sense there were Frenchmen then just as today.

But if you go sufficiently back in time, there was no such thing as France or the French language.

Comment author: DanArmak 13 June 2015 03:22:36PM *  -1 points [-]

Why does that matter? If you go sufficiently far back in time, there was no such thing as humans, either. Statements about humans, and about Frenchmen, are still valid within the right historical time frame.

Comment author: Vaniver 13 June 2015 04:09:07PM 2 points [-]

Why does that matter?

This is actually really relevant to the point--it used to be that a person from Paris and a person from Marseille would have enough difficulty understanding each other that they are functionally speaking different languages. The government of France put a tremendous amount of effort into convincing everyone living in their borders that "being French" was a thing and that it described them, in large part by enforcing homogenization. In order to make the cluster of "Frenchmen" more distinct, outlying members had to be moved closer to the center (and foreign members moved further away from the center).

Comment author: DanArmak 13 June 2015 06:42:09PM 0 points [-]

Yes, that is a very good point. It was a bad example.