Genetics appear to account for social/economic standing more than any other factor, implications?

[Toho]

They did fight a 30 Years War though.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

Implications? I hope we do not have to plunge our countries further into debt in order to increase welfare expenditure now that people will demand the state's support to compensate not only for unequal opportunity and wealth distribution but also their inherent limitations.

[Caelifer_1991]

Implications? I hope we do not have to plunge our countries further into debt in order to increase welfare expenditure now that people will demand the state's support to compensate not only for unequal opportunity and wealth distribution but also their inherent limitations.

Either that or unequal genetics could be used as reason to reduce welfare expenditure on those that will likely achieve nothing with it, diverting the funds instead to useful things like infrastructure and education. Pretty much the entire premise of welfare was that people were not necessarily where they were due to inherent limitations but that in many cases, environmental factors played a larger role; for many people this is probably true, but for those for whom it can be proven not to be the case, there's little economic justification for supporting them - its not as if their children will benefit from a more stable upbringing, genetics will damn them just the same. No, I think genetics should make things rather more efficient in that regard.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

Either that or unequal genetics could be used as reason to reduce welfare expenditure on those that will likely achieve nothing with it, diverting the funds instead to useful things like infrastructure and education. Pretty much the entire premise of welfare was that people were not necessarily where they were due to inherent limitations but that in many cases, environmental factors played a larger role; for many people this is probably true, but for those for whom it can be proven not to be the case, there's little economic justification for supporting them - its not as if their children will benefit from a more stable upbringing, genetics will damn them just the same. No, I think genetics should make things rather more efficient in that regard.

I disagree with the bolded part. The fundamental premise of welfare is the normative assertion that people who are in dire straights, irrespective of causation, deserve to be supported. In a pay-as-you-go pension system, for example, why do we keep paying pensions to people who have outreceived contributions made to their respective pension funds during their time as part of the active workforce, if not for the fact that if left to fend for their own they will starve to death? Why does a disabled person receive disability premium other than precisely for being inherently limited by their disability?

Having said that, it is my hope as well that genetics might be used to divert the flow of funds to useful activities. But coming from a country where rationality in allocation of resources and efficiency are besmirched as the inhumane face of neoliberalism, I fear the genetics card is simply going to add more arrows in the quiver of the ideological proponents of leeching the state, which already comprise the overwhelming majority.

[PikeStance]

Apparently some of us needs to be reminded what was in the OP


This thread is about social mobility, not genetic superiority of racial. ethnic groups

From the OP

To a striking extent, your overall life chances can be predicted not just from your parents’ status but also from your great-great-great-grandparents’. The recent study suggests that 10 percent of variation in income can be predicted based on your parents’ earnings. In contrast, my colleagues and I estimate that 50 to 60 percent of variation in overall status is determined by your lineage. The fortunes of high-status families inexorably fall, and those of low-status families rise, toward the average — what social scientists call “regression to the mean” — but the process can take 10 to 15 generations (300 to 450 years), much longer than most social scientists have estimated in the past.

Family resources and social networks are not irrelevant. Evidence has been found that programs from early childhood education to socioeconomic and racial classroom integration can yield lasting benefits for poor children. But the potential of such programs to alter the overall rate of social mobility in any major way is low.

..to be clear, we found no evidence that certain racial groups innately did better than others. Very high-status groups in America include Ashkenazi Jews, Egyptian Copts, Iranian Muslims, Indian Hindus and Christians, and West Africans.

In my previous post I have attempted to demonstrate the possibility of social regression as well as kids of little intelligence and motivation still succeeding by maintaining their socioeconomic status within society.

[RubiconDecision]

White Euro-Americans have more social mobility. What a shock!

[fkizz]

Like himster said, this is weird to quantify for me, since how much nepotism exists misplaced in "environment" sections (or genetics, due to ethnicity and dominant ruling ethnicity on said society not matching that of the study subject), and how much hard work and motivation to do something exists misplaced in "genetics" section when doing the study.

At any rate I consider it 50/50 as a rough estimate, so there's no left/right wing bias here.

Also is it only culture vs genetics? Where's the room for the effort of the individual itself? All this tendency to blame outside factors for either sucess or failure rather than also accounting for the individual ambition and effort is kinda left wingish (the relativist idea that if individual fails, it's society fault, if successful, it's because his parents were rich or well connected)

[Greymane]

also I would not say that Britain overtook the mid east without help either, last i checked Britain and western europe were never ravaged several times by mongol hordes that sent the country back at least a 100 years and whipping out entire cities and people.

Good point, but Europe has seen invasions on that scale. I seem to recall the British Isles (or part of them anyway) changing hands at least 3 times between year 0 and 1100 CE.
The Dark Ages happened after the fall of the Roman Empire in the west.
Yes, it happened earlier in the development of Europe and this status quo during the Middle Ages and the Early Modern times was part of the reason Europe was so succesfull. Advances warfare technologies were required to beat your opponents, but still this status quo did not change a lot. And if a small state was taken by a more powerfull one, the occupiers generally had more advanced technology and more money.
In China, stuff was a lot more peacefull (because it was a single state, and an extremely big and powerfull one), so less advanced military technology was required.

Also is it only culture vs genetics? Where's the room for the effort of the individual itself? All this tendency to blame outside factors for either sucess or failure rather than also accounting for the individual ambition and effort is kinda left wingish (the relativist idea that if individual fails, it's society fault, if successful, it's because his parents were rich or well connected)

As a 'leftist', I have to disagree with you
I've not often heard a left-wing person say what you describe, but I know it's a stereotype the left probably won't get rid of (because some people actually believe it).
That said, better environment/genetics, will on average lead to a more 'succesful' life. Since everyone likes to think in systems, the 'but some people are more accomplished at certain things than others' get's lost on the way most of the time, leading to this stereotype.

[fkizz]

As a 'leftist', I have to disagree with you
I've not often heard a left-wing person say what you describe, but I know it's a stereotype the left probably won't get rid of (because some people actually believe it).
That said, better environment/genetics, will on average lead to a more 'succesful' life. Since everyone likes to think in systems, the 'but some people are more accomplished at certain things than others' get's lost on the way most of the time, leading to this stereotype.

Well to be fair left and right wing and what they are diverge according to country, in some countries I would be considered leftist, in others I would be considered right wing, depending on the standarts.

But the idea that success and failure to be blamed on society state (external influence) rather than individual drive appears often in leftist ideology, although our local center left party manages to be very down to earth and doesn't follow this trend.

Genetics many times falls on the same type of category in scapegoating (external influence), despite not being the favorite external influence of leftism since it implies the ideas of superior and inferior as objective rather than relativist qualities, regardless, it's still used as another scapegoat to disresgard the merit of the individual in a certain status quo, and for a ridiculous yet very real example see the fat acceptance movements who argue zealously that it's not their fault they're fat, but them having bad genetics that gives them worse propensity to control what they eat, aswell as propensity to get more easily fat, which they translate into total lack of ability in staying fit, thus not having to worry about their fitness, it's just bad genes regarding food, not their own individual lack of ability to change something about themselves.

[sumskilz]

since how much nepotism exists misplaced in "environment" sections

There are a number of traits that heritability can be assessed for that are unaffected by nepotism. Because the heritabilty of those traits that can be tested in a controlled manner is similar to outcomes with a more complex set of variables, this stands as supporting the conclusion that in general 50-60% of personality is heritable.

Also is it only culture vs genetics? Where's the room for the effort of the individual itself?

Unless supernatural freewill exists, an individual is in total a product of genetics and environment.

[Greymane]

Well to be fair left and right wing and what they are diverge according to country, in some countries I would be considered leftist, in others I would be considered right wing, depending on the standarts.

I feel you.
If I would visit Murica, I'd probably be the closest thing to a communist they will ever see

But the idea that success and failure to be blamed on society state (external influence) rather than individual drive appears often in leftist ideology, although our local center left party manages to be very down to earth and doesn't follow this trend.

Genetics many times falls on the same type of category in scapegoating (external influence), despite not being the favorite external influence of leftism since it implies the ideas of superior and inferior as objective rather than relativist qualities, regardless, it's still used as another scapegoat to disresgard the merit of the individual in a certain status quo, and for a ridiculous yet very real example see the fat acceptance movements who argue zealously that it's not their fault they're fat, but them having bad genetics that gives them worse propensity to control what they eat, aswell as propensity to get more easily fat, which they translate into total lack of ability in staying fit, thus not having to worry about their fitness, it's just bad genes regarding food, not their own individual lack of ability to change something about themselves.

Agreed.
The further right you go in the political spectrum, the more emphasis will be placed on personal responsibility and quality, up until the point that bad luck, the environment, etc are disregarded completely, except in individual cases. To the overall line of thought, these other factors are not significant anymore. For the left wing, pretty much the opposite goes. That said, I've talked to some right- and left-wing people (not a lot, admittedly), who take all factors into account in their reasoning.

A few more points.
About the genetic 'superiority': It's just what label you want to put on it, basically. I (and most other, I guess) can perfectly live with the fact that people are smarter/better at things/taller/whatever than me. But I don't consider those people superior beings or something (I have to admit I go very far in that, up until the point I argue that we humans are no better or worse than other animals). The moment you start to put people on a pedestal for a (genetic) quality, that they have had no influence over, is the moment things get scary.
On fat people: even the most right-wing people probably have some friends that seem to never grow any fatter, no matter how much they eat

[Phier]

The moment you start to put people on a pedestal for a (genetic) quality, that they have had no influence over, is the moment things get scary.

I'm sure it was just hard work

[Greymane]

I'm sure it was just hard work

I did obviously not mean a literal pedestal

[The spartan]

I'm sure it was just hard work

Leave it to Phier to equate 'genetics' with 'one very specific phenotype'. Classic.


On topic: it seems like this guy's conclusion went way overboard. From what I read, it seems as if he has made some strong correlations and then ventured out to make conclusion that he frames as a "proof". I mean, come on, to geneticists, this topic is a huge deal and there would be a lot of uproar if this were something taken as truth. This just seems like another statistician who thinks they can use their third-mathematical-eye to glean the truth of how our world works.

[Euphoric]

This just seems like another statistician who thinks they can use their third-mathematical-eye to glean the truth of how our world works.

You just described every social science.

[Caelifer_1991]

I disagree with the bolded part. The fundamental premise of welfare is the normative assertion that people who are in dire straights, irrespective of causation, deserve to be supported. In a pay-as-you-go pension system, for example, why do we keep paying pensions to people who have outreceived contributions made to their respective pension funds during their time as part of the active workforce, if not for the fact that if left to fend for their own they will starve to death? Why does a disabled person receive disability premium other than precisely for being inherently limited by their disability?

Having said that, it is my hope as well that genetics might be used to divert the flow of funds to useful activities. But coming from a country where rationality in allocation of resources and efficiency are besmirched as the inhumane face of neoliberalism, I fear the genetics card is simply going to add more arrows in the quiver of the ideological proponents of leeching the state, which already comprise the overwhelming majority.

I used to be pretty left wing before I shifted over to the center, yet I honestly never really cared for those people that are in dire straits due to their own folly, let them die, it just frees up space for those that might actually achieve something. Welfare focused on anything other than that which helps people help themselves is basically throwing money into an infinitly deep well, every pound/ dollar/ euro spent on such could achieve infinitly more spent on education, or healthcare, or infrastructure, on subsidies, or if there's no significant need for the money, on reduced taxes. As for pensioners, I don't especially care for them, you'd think most people would manage to save up enough to live on after god knows how many decades of life, so I have little sympathy for those that have failed to do so; nevertheless, its worthwhile to support them, to an extent, if only to keep them off the hands of their families who might still actually have a chance of achieving something if not weighed down. Generally speaking, all welfare serves one pragmatic purpose or another, whether its demotivating people to become criminals via unemployment benefits, freeing up the younger generations from the weight of the failures of their grandparents, giving benefits to an idiot so that their children don't have to grow up homeless, or whatever else; for me, the belief that those that have served to do nothing but leech off society their entire lives somehow deserve to be supported was always quite a foreign idea to me - the only valid justifications were/are practical ones.

As for genetics, well, what can we do but wait I suppose? Historically speaking, even the belief that one group or another is inferior has been reason enough to subjugate, oppress, kill and/ or control them. Of course, since nearly everyone in society will probably know, either directly or indirectly, a retard, or the like, and know people that for some reason care about them, given that such a percentage of humanity that may be proven to be of inferior genetics will likely be spread pretty evenly throughout the world population, there'll probably be significant impetus to actually throw our money at them instead of cutting them loose. Ironic, isn't it?

[The spartan]

You just described every social science.

This is true to some degree, but I wasn't making a critique of social sciences themselves. I, myself, am an economist (at least self-proclaimed so) and enjoy statistics quite a bit, I am just not foolish enough to make broad, absolute statements and back them up with statistical data. Plenty of statisticians don't do that either and their services are still highly valuable.

[PikeStance]

This is true to some degree, but I wasn't making a critique of social sciences themselves. I, myself, am an economist (at least self-proclaimed so) and enjoy statistics quite a bit, I am just not foolish enough to make broad, absolute statements and back them up with statistical data. Plenty of statisticians don't do that either and their services are still highly valuable.

This is sort of backwards. Aren't you supposed to collect the data then generate an opinion on that data. Granted, you start your research with a hypothesis and then collect or use data that can either prove or disprove your hypothesis. Now one can pick and choose data points to support their hypothesis. However, what proof do you have that the data was manipulated?

[sumskilz]

On topic: it seems like this guy's conclusion went way overboard. From what I read, it seems as if he has made some strong correlations and then ventured out to make conclusion that he frames as a "proof". I mean, come on, to geneticists, this topic is a huge deal and there would be a lot of uproar if this were something taken as truth. This just seems like another statistician who thinks they can use their third-mathematical-eye to glean the truth of how our world works.

It's the heritability studies that underlie his research that make his conclusions credible, otherwise it would be nothing but correlation which anyone could speculate on through their own political lens.

[Pīrūz Nahavandi]

of course genetics are important in social/economic status.

Why the hell do you think the whites/asians dominated the world and still dominate it ?Why not the blacks,indians ?

GENETICS/RACE

You didn't read the article, did you? You just saw the title and let your fertile imagination do the rest.

"...to be clear, we found no evidence that certain racial groups innately did better than others. Very high-status groups in America include Ashkenazi Jews, Egyptian Copts, Iranian Muslims, Indian Hindus and Christians, and West Africans."

Fun fact: Did know that the Nigerian diaspora is one of the most educated groups in the US?