Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Surnames offer depressing clues to extent of social mobility over generations

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 81 posts

Re: Surnames offer depressing clues to extent of social mobility over generations

#31

Post by eli_gottlieb »

lepukowsky wrote: post #4

"Such competence is potentially heritable and is reinforced by the human tendency to mate with partners of similar traits and ability." I think this raises a very important question: How far are we willing to go to pursue equality in the modern age? It seems that -- generally -- there is an inevitable tendency of humans to mate with someone of similar "stature" or "capacity". Of course, like any generalization, there…

No, we are not going to reconfigure civilization to cater to your fantasies of genetic superiority. Stop trying.

Re: Surnames offer depressing clues to extent of social mobility over generations

#32

Post by eli_gottlieb »

ilaksh wrote: post #25
lepukowsky wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you feel this way from a societal, "consequentialist" point of view, meaning that doing such would necessarily maximize the quality of society on the whole? If so, what if there is an opportunity cost by which such a moral choice stimies your next cancer cure or breakthrough in clean energy? Or perhaps, instead, do you feel that the overall effect on society is not as important as the individual's "right" to maxim…

Although the authors of the article leave a bit of room for attributing a lack of upward mobility to circumstantial disadvantage, you seem to be operating from an almost eugenicist point-of-view with the assumption that position is almost entirely based on inherited ability. Those studies don't prove anything but I believe that culture and circumstance play a large part in determining mobility. The funny thing is tha…

Oh boy, a neo-racist versus a Singulatarian.

Fight, fight, fight, fight!

(Admittedly, I've seen more evidence in favor of AI than in favor of eugenic/dysgenic hypotheses of social inequality.)

Re: Surnames offer depressing clues to extent of social mobility over generations

#33

Post by eli_gottlieb »

philwelch wrote: post #28
ckuehne wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This is perhaps more easily understood when you know that the Jewish culture places enormous focus on educating the next generation and on critical thinking" Or maybe it is even better understood in terms of genetic differences: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence .

Which seems like the result of generations of selective pressure exerted by a culture that values education and critical thinking.

"Culture" is an empty explanation. The question is: were your odds of getting married and having children as a Medieval Ashkenazi Jew better if you were smarter?

I'm descended from these people and I don't know.

Re: Surnames offer depressing clues to extent of social mobility over generations

#34

Post by omegant »

swombat wrote: post #16
omegant wrote: post #3

It's amazing how this works, I've been Paying some attention to this stuff for some time, and it is mostly like that. I've observed 3rd generation families of wealthy landlords and/or bankers (the ones that made the fortune). It's just anecdotal, but the ones that put more effort and attention on education and hardwork (not having access to the money till they are out of the university and have proved their capabilit…

Couldn't agree more on education. Putting a strong emphasis on educating your children to themselves be successful must surely be a strong success factor for them - and something they're likely to do in turn for their own children. Conversely, neglecting your children's education is also likely to be passed on, and also likely to have significant effect. By "education" I don't just mean what happens at school - most…

Completely agree, also I would add that there is a factor that it's very important and I've recently come to learn. Is the example one gives to his sons (I am father of two). If you behave giving importance to money and expending, no matter what you try to teach them, they are going to value wasting money. It applies to all the parts of personality. In a way when they are very small (between 1 and 7 more or less) they mostly try to be your clon, and if you say one thing and act the oposite, they'll notice it. I'm trying to improve myself faster than ever before, just because of that

Re: Surnames offer depressing clues to extent of social mobility over generations

#35

Post by larksimian »

lepukowsky wrote: post #15
thewarrior wrote: post #14

"Such competence is potentially heritable and is reinforced by the human tendency to mate with partners of similar traits and ability." So does this mean that over tens of thousands of years rich people could evolve into a separate race ?

According to Wikipedia, that question doesn't really matter: "race has no taxonomic significance and that all living humans belong to the same species" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_classification%29 I suppose if some group of people got themselves into their own species, where they could not in fact mate with what we know as "human", it would be a pretty big deal. Edit-- I quoted the same line... please…

'Race' is a dumb concept. We know that there are groups of people that are biologically distinct from others. Not to say that they can't interbreed, merely that there are genetic/phenotypic differences between groups.

Probably the most obvious example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease#Epidemiolog... which is a condition that mostly appears in people with ancestry in regions that expose them to malaria.

Skin color is obviously a biological difference that distinguishes different human populations, it just doesn't correlate with all the stuff we actually care about, for instance intelligence. 'Race' is loosely correlated with some specific biological traits, for instance http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/guide/...

As for hyper-successful people breeding themselves into a sub-group with specific traits, for better or for worse, this is obviously possible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prognathism#History

Re: Surnames offer depressing clues to extent of social mobility over generations

#36

Post by lepukowsky »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #31
lepukowsky wrote: post #4

"Such competence is potentially heritable and is reinforced by the human tendency to mate with partners of similar traits and ability." I think this raises a very important question: How far are we willing to go to pursue equality in the modern age? It seems that -- generally -- there is an inevitable tendency of humans to mate with someone of similar "stature" or "capacity". Of course, like any generalization, there…

No, we are not going to reconfigure civilization to cater to your fantasies of genetic superiority. Stop trying.

No, I'm not going to let you misinterpret my argument, keep trying. I'm quoting the article which is suggesting that people breed with the best mate they can, inevitably creating inequality. I am asking how we, as a modern society, reconcile this with the goal of equality. It's really a simple question, do you personally think the nature of mate-choosing could lead to inequality over time? Because I do, and I don't think we have any duty as a society to "regulate" how we choose mates to further the goal of equality. That is not to say I am against all attempts an promoting equality, but this specifically is a line in the sand for me (both aesthetically and morally) and I am curious how others feel. The article is practically aghast that such a facet of our nature could cause inequality (among all the other innumerable mutations we incur) and I find it laughable. If you read The Republic by Plato the section on the Kalipolis does a great job of demonstrating why an attempt at perfect equality is so ridiculous: Imagine what would happen to meritocracy if we didn't value with whom we mated and perhaps you will finally get it.

Edit-It's a question of cultural inequality, not genetic, in my mind.

Re: Surnames offer depressing clues to extent of social mobility over generations

#37

Post by jmerton »

thewarrior wrote: post #14

"Such competence is potentially heritable and is reinforced by the human tendency to mate with partners of similar traits and ability." So does this mean that over tens of thousands of years rich people could evolve into a separate race ?

No. Crudely put, the rich guys get the pretty girls. This re-averages the IQ. There's an article somewhere; sorry I don't have a link handy. Edit: This re-averages the overall genetic factors.

Re: Surnames offer depressing clues to extent of social mobility over generations

#38

Post by guard-of-terra »

jmerton wrote: post #37
thewarrior wrote: post #14

"Such competence is potentially heritable and is reinforced by the human tendency to mate with partners of similar traits and ability." So does this mean that over tens of thousands of years rich people could evolve into a separate race ?

No. Crudely put, the rich guys get the pretty girls. This re-averages the IQ. There's an article somewhere; sorry I don't have a link handy. Edit: This re-averages the overall genetic factors.

And pretty girls are healthy ones. Which lets powerful ones avoid degeneration.

Re: Surnames offer depressing clues to extent of social mobility over generations

#39

Post by jmerton »

larksimian wrote: post #35
lepukowsky wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Wikipedia, that question doesn't really matter: "race has no taxonomic significance and that all living humans belong to the same species" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_classification%29 I suppose if some group of people got themselves into their own species, where they could not in fact mate with what we know as "human", it would be a pretty big deal. Edit-- I quoted the same line... please…

'Race' is a dumb concept. We know that there are groups of people that are biologically distinct from others. Not to say that they can't interbreed, merely that there are genetic/phenotypic differences between groups. Probably the most obvious example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease#Epidemiolog... which is a condition that mostly appears in people with ancestry in regions that expose them to malar…

Thanks for the links. My area of (amateur) research is "contra-science," and one sub-set I find most interesting is so-called "race." What is called "race' seems actually to be the result of environmental/geographic induced gene expression. My favorite examples is a South African sub-culture that possesses the Cohen gene (Tribe of Isaiah), but looks identical to their neighbors. They have been in South Africa for about 800 years.
Post reply on HN