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

Disproportionately Common Names by Profession

verdantlabs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 110 posts

Re: Disproportionately Common Names by Profession

#101

Post by jen729w »

radicalbyte wrote: post #72
adevine wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't appear incorrect to me. The blurb on the graph says "For example, a higher percentage of Elwoods are farmers than of most any other name." As I read it, it means that, say, 1% of Elwoods become farmers, while only .1% of Steves are farmers. That is, if your name is Elwood, you are much more likely to be a farmer than if your name is anything else.

That's Nominative Determinism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_determinism Think someone called Crapper being a toilet salesman, or Smith being a Blacksmith, Baker being a Baker etc. I.e. a funny non-science based upon misunderstanding historical coincidence (profession being used as surnames, family marketing name being used as a crass synoniem for something else) with causation.

Covered heavily by New Scientist over the years (with tongue usually firmly in cheek).

https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=...

Re: Disproportionately Common Names by Profession

#103

Post by learnstats2 »

lmm wrote: post #93
learnstats2 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Coming from wealthier background, you're more likely to be well educated. So, by your admission, education is not meritocratic. I claim that employment is non-meritocratic first by your measure: if access to a better education is not merited, then employers concentrating on qualifications alone are not hiring according to merit. I claim also that employment is non-meritocratic independently. The most obvious exampl…

> I claim that employment is non-meritocratic first by your measure: if access to a better education is not merited, then employers concentrating on qualifications alone are not hiring according to merit. That doesn't follow. Maybe education changes your merit, and people with a better education actually are better at their jobs.

It follows.

Or, in your meritocracy, people pay to increase their merit/the merit of their children? That contradicts my definition.

Re: Disproportionately Common Names by Profession

#104

Post by learnstats2 »

Crito wrote: post #89
learnstats2 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Coming from wealthier background, you're more likely to be well educated. So, by your admission, education is not meritocratic. I claim that employment is non-meritocratic first by your measure: if access to a better education is not merited, then employers concentrating on qualifications alone are not hiring according to merit. I claim also that employment is non-meritocratic independently. The most obvious exampl…

I don't think anybody claims that higher education in the US is a meritocracy. When people on HN talk about the meritocracy as though it is something that exists, they are talking about it in the tech industry, not in the education system that precedes it.

If tech industry is a meritocracy via higher education, and higher education is not itself a meritocracy, then the tech industry cannot be a meritocracy.

Putting the unfair part in an early funnelling step of the hiring process, and then abstracting that away, doesn't change that the whole process is unfair.

Re: Disproportionately Common Names by Profession

#105

Post by lmm »

learnstats2 wrote: post #103
lmm wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I claim that employment is non-meritocratic first by your measure: if access to a better education is not merited, then employers concentrating on qualifications alone are not hiring according to merit. That doesn't follow. Maybe education changes your merit, and people with a better education actually are better at their jobs.

It follows. Or, in your meritocracy, people pay to increase their merit/the merit of their children? That contradicts my definition.

What definition would that be? A nation where people were not allowed to learn outside of standardized government training might achieve equality, but only by grinding everyone down to zero.

Re: Disproportionately Common Names by Profession

#106

Post by learnstats2 »

lmm wrote: post #105
learnstats2 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It follows. Or, in your meritocracy, people pay to increase their merit/the merit of their children? That contradicts my definition.

What definition would that be? A nation where people were not allowed to learn outside of standardized government training might achieve equality, but only by grinding everyone down to zero.

Haha. No, it's more like this for me: if the provided education system were good and appropriately diverse, few people would feel the need to pay to leave it.

Then you might be able to say that everyone had access to a decent standard of education.

Re: Disproportionately Common Names by Profession

#107

Post by boomlinde »

Houshalter wrote: post #82
vickytnz wrote: post #78

Gah, I hate stats that a) don't say where the information comes from b) don't say which part of the world they're talking about (US sites are particularly prone to this). I'm assuming this is from US census data, but it's not particularly obvious. There's a rest of the world, you know.... [EDIT: looking at the app, maybe it is worldwide? Still, referring to things like "Republican" doesn't inspire confidence that it'…

It says the data sources are from the FEC, SSA, and wikipedia.

It does, but it only points to the websites of FEC, SSA and Wikipedia, without really mentioning what data was used. That's barely more useful to me than "Source: Internet".

Re: Disproportionately Common Names by Profession

#108

Post by lmm »

learnstats2 wrote: post #106
lmm wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What definition would that be? A nation where people were not allowed to learn outside of standardized government training might achieve equality, but only by grinding everyone down to zero.

Haha. No, it's more like this for me: if the provided education system were good and appropriately diverse, few people would feel the need to pay to leave it. Then you might be able to say that everyone had access to a decent standard of education.

That doesn't make the difference you think it does. There are European countries where barely anyone pays for education (and private schools/universities are less reputable than state ones). You still find the children of wealthy people are disproportionately likely to be wealthy themselves. Parental involvement, cultural attitudes to education - and, probably, as politically unacceptable as it is to say it, genetics as well - seem like bigger effects than expensive private education.

Re: Disproportionately Common Names by Profession

#109

Post by learnstats2 »

lmm wrote: post #108
learnstats2 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha. No, it's more like this for me: if the provided education system were good and appropriately diverse, few people would feel the need to pay to leave it. Then you might be able to say that everyone had access to a decent standard of education.

That doesn't make the difference you think it does. There are European countries where barely anyone pays for education (and private schools/universities are less reputable than state ones). You still find the children of wealthy people are disproportionately likely to be wealthy themselves. Parental involvement, cultural attitudes to education - and, probably, as politically unacceptable as it is to say it, genetics…

Sure, before I was derailed by education, my point was that society is not meritocratic. So we're now agreeing.

We don't know if genetics is an effect here because we can't eliminate background wealth - even twin studies are broken because twins get adopted into similar environments.

But, the suggestion from twin studies is that income is primarily environmental, i.e. not genetic. Here's a fresh reference: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141106113202.ht...

I suggest that it's fashionable to say social inequality is down to genetics - it certainly happens a lot in these forums and it comes up especially when people would rather pass the buck for difficult social problems.

Re: Disproportionately Common Names by Profession

#110

Post by lmm »

learnstats2 wrote: post #109
lmm wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't make the difference you think it does. There are European countries where barely anyone pays for education (and private schools/universities are less reputable than state ones). You still find the children of wealthy people are disproportionately likely to be wealthy themselves. Parental involvement, cultural attitudes to education - and, probably, as politically unacceptable as it is to say it, genetics…

Sure, before I was derailed by education, my point was that society is not meritocratic. So we're now agreeing. We don't know if genetics is an effect here because we can't eliminate background wealth - even twin studies are broken because twins get adopted into similar environments. But, the suggestion from twin studies is that income is primarily environmental, i.e. not genetic. Here's a fresh reference: http://www…

Genetics aren't the only thing we inherit, and aren't the only possible source of differences in merit. It could equally be cultural differences - e.g. attitudes towards education, work, society and so on - that would be passed on even to adopted children, and would make people genuinely better at their jobs. Even if the advantages of the rich are purely environmental, that in no way proves that they're not meritocratic.
Post reply on HN