Live data from Hacker News

Surnames offer depressing clues to extent of social mobility over generations

economist.com

61–70 of 81 posts

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

#61

it would be interesting to see as a baseline the study of for how many generations descendants of an alpha lion/wolf/gorilla get into the alpha position themselves, if any.

very often in those species the alpha is the male that is doing most of the mating (although almost never exclusively) so that analysis may not be that meaningful.

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

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

>It's really a simple question, do you personally think the nature of mate-choosing could lead to inequality over time?

Across deep time? No. People don't copy their parents' values or lifestyles over time, so they often wind up breeding differently than their parents did, so genetic recombination occurs and unusual genes flow back into the main population.

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

#64
post #55
post #10

It's intersting how generations of successfull girls each marrying someone higher in society than her parents wouldn't be traced by this study on surnames.

Successful women tend to keep their surname after marriage. I did. Some consider me mildly successful I guess? It is also because I didn't want to lose my identity I had for 30 years, and I am not the property of my husband.

I absolutely agree with your position re: property etc, but for how many generations has the practice you're describing (keeping your surname after marriage) been common for, though? One...maybe.

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

#65

I think using professions ("lawyer") as a proxy for privilege is a little bit problematic. I'm sure I could have been a lawyer, but I never considered it because I'd never met a lawyer. It just wasn't on my radar. Instead, I became an engineer. My grandfather & father had been engineers, so working in industry, making things was something that I could conceive. I'm sure I didn't suffer financially - I'm better off th…

> because life choices can be "sticky" between generations.

Isn't that the very definition of social immobility, though?

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

#66
post #6

Fun fact: 21% of Koreans have the family name "Kim" (means "gold"): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_name

And in English the most common last name is "Smith". Both of deal with metals is that a coincidence?

In short, yes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_(Korean_name)

In my experience, East Asian surnames tend to indicate the geographic origin of your ancestors, rather than their professions. In the case of the Kims, chances are you had an ancestor in Gimhae. (OTOH, I wouldn't be terribly surprised to learn that Gimhae was once famous for its blacksmiths or goldsmiths.)

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

#67
post #55
post #10

It's intersting how generations of successfull girls each marrying someone higher in society than her parents wouldn't be traced by this study on surnames.

Successful women tend to keep their surname after marriage. I did. Some consider me mildly successful I guess? It is also because I didn't want to lose my identity I had for 30 years, and I am not the property of my husband.

This is a good point but ultimately the important thing is what surname the children get since that is what passed down.

Also this is a random ass guess and backed up by absolutely no data, but I'd bet a sizable amount of money that couples that follow the traditional system of giving everyone the man's name have significantly more children on average than couples who don't, so while your situation may be a factor it is probably currently nothing more than statistically noise.

FWIW, I think you made the right choice. Expecting women to lose the familial history via naming should seem pretty ridiculous in this day and age but it is one of those things that flies under the radar even for a lot of people who are otherwise pretty enlightened about gender issues.

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

#68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#69

Sweden might be very equal but also a country without major wars or revolutions for centuries. Also probably was industrialized for long. Same for UK, actually.

England, and more recently the UK, has been almost continuously at war for most of its history. Big wars, small wars, but wars.

Most of the history is irrelevant - we're talking a few centuries here. Also, overseas wars don't count.

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

#70
post #55
post #10

It's intersting how generations of successfull girls each marrying someone higher in society than her parents wouldn't be traced by this study on surnames.

Successful women tend to keep their surname after marriage. I did. Some consider me mildly successful I guess? It is also because I didn't want to lose my identity I had for 30 years, and I am not the property of my husband.

It is becoming easier and easier to keep separate surnames, I'd guess more and more people will do as you did. It's sad it still clashes in some people's mind and paperworks (ironicly non official agencies most of the time, i.e. my wife kept her name and we can't sign up as married in some bank forms because of a stupid name validation on the fields.
Post reply on HN