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

71–80 of 81 posts

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

#71

Post by lepukowsky »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #62
lepukowsky wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not talking about genes. I'm talking about the passing of culture, values, etc... It seems pretty obvious to me that good habits produce more good habits, and bad habits produce more bad habits among family lineage, but no one seems even willing to admit that!

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

#72

Post by saalweachter »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #53
saalweachter wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over that time period is it more likely to be selective pressure or a founder effect? A founder effect doesn't require continuous selective pressure, it just requires a population with a small group of founders from whom the entire population is descended. For instance, a group that splits off from a larger group, or passes through a population bottleneck. In this situation a set of genes -- inherited from the founde…

That could be, but with a founder effect in a population whose European contribution came from a small number of females, we then have to expect either: * The intelligence came from the European converted-in founder females. In which case, how come we don't see similar intelligence averages in similar European populations? * Or, the intelligence came from the male Jewish founders. In which case, how come we don't see…

The founder effect gives two possible answers:

1. The gene or gene suite originated with one of the founders. Novel mutation or assemblage of uncommon preexisting mutations.

2. The proposed smart gene is not adaptive. Being smart is cool, but only one facet of fitness. The smart gene would then be weeded out of the larger population through selection pressure, but survive in the smaller population through the founder effect.

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

#73

Post by lepukowsky »

ckuehne wrote: post #24
lepukowsky wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes no sense. How could one group possibly slowly evolve over a great period of time to be any different than anyone else?

What exactly do you think "makes no sense"? That two groups could evolve different traits over time? If so, how would you explain differences in skin color between West Africans and Northern Europeans? Or differences in lactose tolerance between different ethnic groups [1]? [1] http://www.foodreactions.org/intolerance/lactose/prevalence....

Because I live in a western liberal democracy and have been indoctrinated to believe that differences between cultures have no qualitative bearing, they are merely choices among equal values, and as such I cannot possibly comprehend such blatant facts.

Please tell me you knew I was being sarcastic...

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

#74

Post by ckuehne »

lepukowsky wrote: post #73
ckuehne wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly do you think "makes no sense"? That two groups could evolve different traits over time? If so, how would you explain differences in skin color between West Africans and Northern Europeans? Or differences in lactose tolerance between different ethnic groups [1]? [1] http://www.foodreactions.org/intolerance/lactose/prevalence....

Because I live in a western liberal democracy and have been indoctrinated to believe that differences between cultures have no qualitative bearing, they are merely choices among equal values, and as such I cannot possibly comprehend such blatant facts. Please tell me you knew I was being sarcastic...

Well, I was going to add "EDIT: Or are you just being sarcastic?". Twice. But I didn't. After all, it's Hacker News.

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

#75

Post by aestra »

georgemcbay wrote: post #67
aestra wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Re: children we don't have any so we haven't had to make a choice about names yet.

Thank you for your kind words.

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

#76

Post by aestra »

taeric wrote: post #58
aestra wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Many of us are under the impression that this option is relatively recent. That is, historically you didn't have a choice as to whether to keep your name or not. That not the case? (Or course, I'm curious how much choice anyone had. Many "surnames" that we know are either occupation or city of origin based. Or am I off on that, as well?)

About 20 percent of women in their 60s have different names from their husbands for what it's worth.

I know people like lawyers celebrities and real estate agents have a vested interest in keeping the name they built a reputation around.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3287883

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

#77

Post by token_female »

6ren wrote: post #49

They don't seem to account for non-socioeconomic factors like genetics and nurturing. I'm not saying aristocrats are a master race, just that if your ancestors won competitions, you may have inherited whatever genetic factors helped them. These might include abilities for collaboration, "reading" other people, intelligence... and perhaps competitiveness, controlled aggression and ruthlessness. Nurture would include v…

_genetics_? This is the second from top comment? I don't think I'd seen proto-eugenics this highly upvoted on HN before. I'm disappointed.

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

#78

Post by eli_gottlieb »

lepukowsky wrote: post #71
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I'm not talking about genes. I'm talking about the passing of culture, values, etc... It seems pretty obvious to me that good habits produce more good habits, and bad habits produce more bad habits among family lineage, but no one seems even willing to admit that!

Well, children don't copy their parents.

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

#79

Post by 6ren »

heurist wrote: post #57
6ren wrote: post #49

They don't seem to account for non-socioeconomic factors like genetics and nurturing. I'm not saying aristocrats are a master race, just that if your ancestors won competitions, you may have inherited whatever genetic factors helped them. These might include abilities for collaboration, "reading" other people, intelligence... and perhaps competitiveness, controlled aggression and ruthlessness. Nurture would include v…

The article did suggest upbringing as a possible cause. If genetics were that big of a factor wouldn't we see the two groups dividing over time? Instead the article says that the odds of surnames having the same economic value are the same after 300 to 500 years. I assume all of the genetic traits you listed are more fluid than that.

I'm not clear which two "groups" you mean, or that they'd divide.

There is a class divide for human "breeding", with expressions like "marrying below" etc. But more importantly, people marry people they meet, who tend to be in their social group. So I guess this does come down to a class "race".

Aside: I expect specific surnames having the same economic value over time is a consequence of that class strata having the same value over time. i.e. it's the class, not the specific lineage. But I agree that if was due to the lineage, not the class, it would indicate something else passed on (money, influence etc) other than genetics. Of course, in practice all these factors are present to some degree and hard to disentangle.

Tangent: I think many people take political solace in us all being genetically more-or-less equal - but I think the true source of equality is that we can all think and exchange. We can create things that didn't exist before, solve problems we haven't seen before. I don't mean scientific breakthroughs, just the trivial problem-solving we all do, every day, to function. From making a joke to baking a cake. And we can communicate and trade, to combine our strengths and work together - which benefits each of us more than zero-sum conflict. Who cares who's at the "top"?

This philosophy enables aliens - of all kinds - to be "one of us" instead of "the other".

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

#80

Post by PeterisP »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #78
lepukowsky wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not talking about genes. I'm talking about the passing of culture, values, etc... It seems pretty obvious to me that good habits produce more good habits, and bad habits produce more bad habits among family lineage, but no one seems even willing to admit that!

Well, children don't copy their parents.

Children do copy their parents more often than not - sure, they don't always do that, but both habits and values are quite hereditary (though mostly due to nurture, rather than genetics).
Post reply on HN