You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

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

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: 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.