"The truth is that, in many cases, elite groups are genetically different from the rest of the population."
This is, without a doubt, true. And one of the more advantageous genetic traits is higher cognition. But at least one situation that some elite groups use is a lack of a positive trait: integrity. An absence of integrity has given some elite groups enormous wealth and power. I believe Netanyahu is an excellent example of gaining power through a lack of integrity. There are numerous examples of this in the power structure of the United States.
This was a well constructed, data-driven macro picture piece. Your political opinions add zero to this discussion. As my Statistics professor said incessantly, "The plural of anecdote is not data."
No one gives a shit that you think Bibi Netanyahu lacks integrity. I have zero idea why you think that; moreover, your skewed perceptions are irrelevant from a debate point of view.
When I read that, all I thought was "One more loser who has failed and in his bitterness now believes anyone who succeeds must have done so in some kind of underhanded fashion."
Absent anything to the contrary, that is my guiding assumption.
Whining about "the current power structure" is what losers do. Winners go home and fuck the prom queen.
"No one gives a shit that you think Bibi Netanyahu lacks integrity. I have zero idea why you think that; moreover, your skewed perceptions are irrelevant from a debate point of view."
If you are trying to be serious, you are one of the dumbest fucks who ever drew a breath.
"When I read that, all I thought was "One more loser who has failed and in his bitterness now believes anyone who succeeds must have done so in some kind of underhanded fashion."
I made it quite clear that I do not believe that everyone who succeeds is underhanded, but I do believe you are a dumb fuck.
I was responding to the gratuitous idiocy written by @Realist. He is the one who made the comments about Bibi succeeding in an underhanded way. Aporia writes smart stuff bigly.
Certainly there are genes which influence status acquisition. Certainly that set of genes can be divided into two sets: those which are neutral or positive in increasing the tendency to behave with integrity, and those which negatively influence the tendency to behave with integrity.
(Of course we can define those two sets, although it is possible that one of those sets is the empty set.)
All else being equal, then, we would expect those with genes which tend to increase their likelihood of acquiring status to also have more genes (with respect to a reference population) which cause them to behave with less integrity in a status climbing way.
This reminds me of Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind and his description of why humans are designed to resist bullies despite their strength. He gives the example that if you just breed the chickens that lay the most eggs, egg production in the flock goes down because often the biggest egg layers are bullies who hurt the other chickens. If you breed the biggest egg-laying group instead of individuals then you can increase total egg production. Someone who uses elite talents to enrich themselves at the expense of the group is worse than someone mediocre who makes the group better.
Doesn’t it depend on how you’re defining integrity? Isn’t it possible that Netanyahu is from his perspective “doing what it takes” to ensure a future for his people?
Likewise, western elites might believe that their policies are what’s necessary to preserve their countries or even the planet as a whole. Integrity as a concept makes more sense in interpersonal relationships, I think.
Don't confuse Netanyahu's criminal behavior with a lack of integrity. He wouldn't be where he is if he wasn't capable of convincing many people, including his opponents, that he can be relied upon. He may have succumbed to the temptation of using his position for personal gain, but that's a side effect and not the reason for his success.
If Netanyahu finds himself out of power, it won't be because other people don't trust him or because he's abused his position. It will be because they disagree with him.
Derision, satire and mockery are great ways to deal with obvious problems. This tactic helped abolish manly dueling, for example, which led to so many senseless deaths. But the ability to trick people is not easily discerned. Sociopaths need to understand that it is not in their best interest to cheat because they will get caught and go to jail, that following the rules will bring them more benefits than cheating. We don’t have that rule culture anymore.
The US already has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. How many more resources do we have to expend in locking people up? God forbid we should look at the root causes of crime and address those.
Other than Lebanese, Mexico seems lacking in elite segmentation. Turkey and Mexico have a number of similarities, but on the PISA test, there's a tiny but distinct group of very high scorers in Turkey but less so in Mexico. One theory is the Counter-Reformation was so effective in Mexico it blocked the kind of elite formation processes that were conducive to Protestantism in Europe (e.g., Huguenots).
it seems there is also difference in between median scores of mexico and turkey.
- In Turkey, 74% of students attained at least Level 2 proficiency in reading. In Mexico, 55% of students attained at least Level 2 proficiency in reading. Some 63% of students in Turkey attained Level 2 or higher in mathematics. Some 44% of students in Mexico attained Level 2 or higher in mathematics.
just want to make a minor clarification on the bengali data
- the original surname list dates to the period of a united bengal, which was (at the time) about 50% muslim and 50% hindu
- the clark et al graph is from late 20th century west bengal, which is 75% hindu and 25% muslim, and 1/3rd of the modern population of bengalis (2/3rd of which is in bangladesh)
Indeed, the rich are 'special.' But one should always distinguish wealth from intelligence. Not all wealthy people are intelligent, and not all intelligent people are wealthy. In fact, the preponderance of brilliant people are not wealthy. As I stated above, sadly, a lack of integrity can provide wealth and power.
In fact, there is a case to be made that the largely left leaning tendencies of the Academic cadre is precisely because in an increasingly materialistic society this academics feel that their intelectual and cognitive capacity should correspond to their wealth status. In other words, technocracy. If this is true it’s quite a discovery and tells us much about the current direction of politics and society in general.
A well-written, data-driven support of a hypothesis. I am not sure how broadly applicable this hypothesis is, but it has some compelling points. In support of a genetic component to success, for centuries in Europe, if a poor peasant child was smart, the way to get out of the grinding servitude of serfdom was to become a literate priest or monk which - in theory - removed a smart boy's genetics from the next generation. During that same period in Europe, education and scholarship were prized in the Jewish communities, so families wanted their girls to marry scholars and - next best - successful professionals, which meant the genes of smart males were passed down to the next generation.
Each of these examples can be explained by simple in-group dynamics, how tightly-knit communities leverage their social networks for mutual advantage, as well as high-level state interventions that secured recruitment and upward mobility for select groups. It seems you're attempting to justify outcomes through genetic determinism, but these patterns have nothing to do with genes. In fact, genetic research demonstrates that outbreeding (genetic diversity) rather than inbreeding is positively correlated with intelligence and other favorable traits. Elite status is maintained through social mechanisms, not genetic superiority.
One would have to have very little confidence in humanity to assume that genuine equality of opportunity wouldn't produce even more remarkable examples of human ingenuity. Imagine how much potential remains untapped when so many people lack equal access to opportunities that would allow them to fulfill their capabilities. The closest approximation to merit-based elite selection might be China's gaokao examination system, which provides a relatively uniform pathway to advancement regardless of background. One could argue that the correlation between this more accessible system and China's exceptional achievements in recent decades, along with their rapidly developing elite human capital, suggests what becomes possible when talent selection is broadened beyond inherited privilege
These people are just propagandists for those who already have power. I have witnessed first hand that creativity, and a hardy work ethic, do not foist you into higher status. In many cases it actually works to your detriment. Those who already have status, power and authority in an organization feel threatened by potentially more competent additions so they subtly restrict their upward mobility. I used to believe that everything was meritocratic and the most elite people rose through the ranks, but the ranks are heavily guarded by gatekeepers. In my own experience I have seen connections beat out more talented people frequently. Society would become incredibly unstable I think if merit were the driving force behind who attains what. You would quickly realize that everyone does in fact have some latent potential and there would be alot more churn in who sits in what seats. This is uncomfortable for the current occupiers to admit, so they say hey look all these people Im related to, who have been privileged by all of this nepotism and connections, are successful from all this nepotism. See! Its just we have better genetics! Pay no attention to every normal person in out familial group! That might undermine our entire justification for holding power over you. It’s totally circular, but these people know that and they don’t want you to know that. So they point out genetics.
Exactly. Just this morning I was thinking about EU leadership crying over being excluded from negotiations about their own future, while simultaneously promoting meritocracy tropes about "European values." If you randomly inspect a few of these leaders, the nepotism is striking: Ursula von der Leyen (daughter of CDU minister-president Ernst Albrecht), Kaja Kallas (daughter of former Estonian PM Siim Kallas), Jens Stoltenberg (son of Norwegian foreign minister Thorvald Stoltenberg), the list is endless.
We love mocking Hollywood nepo babies, yet we give political dynasties a free pass. These tiny elites enrich themselves through inherited networks, then self-congratulate on their "superior genes" and "leadership qualities." It's the same circular justification: pointing to their own success, built on connections, as proof of innate capability, while telling everyone else to just work harder. The genetic determinism argument is just aristocracy with a lab coat.
If y’all doubt this conclusion, or don’t know how to square it with egalitarian philosophical commitments please read Kate Harden’s book The Genetic Lottery. It’s a very accessible intro to the polygenic indices associated with many “success-indicating”phenotypes across happiness, health, wealth, intelligence, etc.
The selection effects of assortative mating are real, but it’s also possible to raise the floor through social policy such that we can still become more egalitarian.
Thanks for this article. Some other examples are the deliberate settling of Jews in Białystok, Eastern Poland for economic development of the region, and the recusant Catholics of England such as the Lane-Fox family, who had to be wealthy to avoid forced conversion by the Church of England.
The Norman invaders of England in 1066 were noted to be especially tall Vikings who had colonised northern France, giving them an obvious advantage at a time when combat was still hand-to-hand. Good nutrition helps too, which is obviously correlated with wealth.
If we are to wield Occam's razor, there is a far simpler explanation for the intelligence of Ashkenazi. Escaping pogroms requires foresight, resourcefulness and quick thinking. As such, ethnic repression is a brutal Darwinian selection mechanism.
An interesting read, but I'm still left kind of wondering what the point is? Of course genes have something to do with success and intelligence, but we are obviously better off without royalty. Obsession over lineage causes two problems, stolen glory by incompetent members of an otherwise elite family, and exclusion of highly intelligent and motivated people outside of any acknowledged elite lineage. So why bother obsessing over it? Obviously we aren't all created equal but we make a better society when we use it as our base assumption.
Do you think that eliteness is excluded from the otherwise universal biological pattern of regression to the mean?
The truth is that, in many cases, ALL groups are genetically different from the rest of the population. Selection works for everybody and I will say it works the most for the underclass. IQ has a lower correlation with income than schizophrenia.
In the UK, representation of working class people in journalism, media, etc is far lower now than 50 years ago. It’s usually attributed to middle- and upper-class blocking of opportunity, a conspiracy really. Could it be that improvements in educational attainment over the past 100 years or so fractionated off many capable people into higher classes? The working class is now a much lower percentage of the population than in the past, the residue of that distillation. (I know that sounds snobby, but my parents were solid working class, I’m middle class I suppose)
That's exactly what you would expect in a meritocracy. Talented people move up from their class depleting the potential for future talent of that class.
Very interesting but concerning Jews 2000 years ago a few small corrections:
"It was split between groups like the Samaritans, Essenes, Zealots, and most importantly the written Torah-promoting Sadducees who had adopted Hellenistic culture, and the written and oral Torah-promoting Pharisees who opposed the adoption of any aspects of Greek culture and language."
Samaritans were already not considered part of Judaism at this time.
The idea that the Sadducees adopted Hellenistic culture and were part of the elites is based more or less on nothing. It seems to come from a confusion between the "House of Zadok", a leading priestly family, and their supporters and the Sadducees but there is no indication they had anything to do with each others.
The Pharisees were *not* the same thing as the Rabbis that came after and did not believe in any oral Torah, a concept that belongs only to Rabbinic Judaism. The Pharisees did take part in the war against Rome very actively.
The Rabbis were a marginal group until the 3rd century at least and had no influence. They retro-actively imagined they had the same influence at the beginning than they had later but it is not true.
We do not know how many Jews there were in the 1st century. 5 millions ? Why not, but the number is based on a mistake from a middle ages monk, not real data.
We do not know how many Jews converted to Christianity, we do know that the first non Jewish Christians came from the "Judaizers", pagans interested in Judaism who sometimes did convert to Judaism. They were usually women and urban elites.
This is an interesting piece. I have two questions; I wonder if the author or anyone else is able to answer them? First, if elites are the product of trait heredity over generations, how would you account for regression towards the mean? Second, and I honestly don't mean to be too picky but it does seem important, isn't the article based entirely upon correlational data rather than cause and effect data with explanatory power? At face value (and it may be that you're able to answer these questions), the correlational data seems limited to setting up a hypothesis, which would normally be the start point and not the end point of research, rather than anything stronger.
I’ve always thought regression to the mean is just because of the unlikelihood of outliers marrying each other. If someone is 4 SD’s above average in say IQ, he will probably amass a lot of wealth, and then would want to trade the wealth for beauty in his wife, who is likely just average. Then with some basic assumptions, his children are probably 2 SD’s above average and so they “regressed”. This can be proven wrong, if we have two outlier parents in a category who still have a regressed child, do we have any studies on this?
Interestingly this can be avoided, by strongly limiting the dating pool similar to Jews or Brahmins, where their regression to the mean will be much lesser, which might be what we see in reality too (on average Jews or Brahmins always do better than most groups in intellectual activities)
What an interesting thought! The perfect rabbit hole for a Sunday morning! Sadly, there's no reason for regression to stop at that point so it'll continue through the generations to the mean. I think height might be the best example since it excludes social variables (leaving out nutritional effects and whatnot). The selection effect comes (tallness in a family apparently running for many generations) through height taking undue prominence with the descendants who are tall are being disproportionately highlighted. Like rock stars dying at 27.
"The truth is that, in many cases, elite groups are genetically different from the rest of the population."
This is, without a doubt, true. And one of the more advantageous genetic traits is higher cognition. But at least one situation that some elite groups use is a lack of a positive trait: integrity. An absence of integrity has given some elite groups enormous wealth and power. I believe Netanyahu is an excellent example of gaining power through a lack of integrity. There are numerous examples of this in the power structure of the United States.
This was a well constructed, data-driven macro picture piece. Your political opinions add zero to this discussion. As my Statistics professor said incessantly, "The plural of anecdote is not data."
No one gives a shit that you think Bibi Netanyahu lacks integrity. I have zero idea why you think that; moreover, your skewed perceptions are irrelevant from a debate point of view.
When I read that, all I thought was "One more loser who has failed and in his bitterness now believes anyone who succeeds must have done so in some kind of underhanded fashion."
Absent anything to the contrary, that is my guiding assumption.
Whining about "the current power structure" is what losers do. Winners go home and fuck the prom queen.
"No one gives a shit that you think Bibi Netanyahu lacks integrity. I have zero idea why you think that; moreover, your skewed perceptions are irrelevant from a debate point of view."
If you are trying to be serious, you are one of the dumbest fucks who ever drew a breath.
"When I read that, all I thought was "One more loser who has failed and in his bitterness now believes anyone who succeeds must have done so in some kind of underhanded fashion."
I made it quite clear that I do not believe that everyone who succeeds is underhanded, but I do believe you are a dumb fuck.
Opinions are like you...
"Opinions are like you..."
You are replying to a comment I made on December 2nd, 2023!
Now I know you are a dumb fuck.
Arrrrh, but I've read and commented too.
That comment seems overly personal and as well as being very rude.
If that’s what you actually think, I wonder why you bother to read Aporia’s stack.
I was responding to the gratuitous idiocy written by @Realist. He is the one who made the comments about Bibi succeeding in an underhanded way. Aporia writes smart stuff bigly.
My sincere apologies to you.
Don't hate the player; hate the poor formatting of the responses section.
:)
Certainly there are genes which influence status acquisition. Certainly that set of genes can be divided into two sets: those which are neutral or positive in increasing the tendency to behave with integrity, and those which negatively influence the tendency to behave with integrity.
(Of course we can define those two sets, although it is possible that one of those sets is the empty set.)
All else being equal, then, we would expect those with genes which tend to increase their likelihood of acquiring status to also have more genes (with respect to a reference population) which cause them to behave with less integrity in a status climbing way.
If no-one knows you, you have failed. Prom queens fuck people who are attractive, interesting, or known.
No-one knows you. Therefore, by your own definition, you are a failure and a loser
This reminds me of Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind and his description of why humans are designed to resist bullies despite their strength. He gives the example that if you just breed the chickens that lay the most eggs, egg production in the flock goes down because often the biggest egg layers are bullies who hurt the other chickens. If you breed the biggest egg-laying group instead of individuals then you can increase total egg production. Someone who uses elite talents to enrich themselves at the expense of the group is worse than someone mediocre who makes the group better.
Doesn’t it depend on how you’re defining integrity? Isn’t it possible that Netanyahu is from his perspective “doing what it takes” to ensure a future for his people?
Likewise, western elites might believe that their policies are what’s necessary to preserve their countries or even the planet as a whole. Integrity as a concept makes more sense in interpersonal relationships, I think.
You are living in a dream world. Most people in power are devoid of integrity.
Excellent rebuttal.
Don't confuse Netanyahu's criminal behavior with a lack of integrity. He wouldn't be where he is if he wasn't capable of convincing many people, including his opponents, that he can be relied upon. He may have succumbed to the temptation of using his position for personal gain, but that's a side effect and not the reason for his success.
If Netanyahu finds himself out of power, it won't be because other people don't trust him or because he's abused his position. It will be because they disagree with him.
Seems that the way to prevent this from occurring is a strong rule of law culture.
Yes, but how do we enact that with the current power structure?
A law and order revolution?
Law has been subverted. A culture should have a strong immune system. The West has AIDS and it got it from Zionists.
The Chinese are "Zionists?"
Is there a Zionist in the room right now, Karen?
Derision, satire and mockery are great ways to deal with obvious problems. This tactic helped abolish manly dueling, for example, which led to so many senseless deaths. But the ability to trick people is not easily discerned. Sociopaths need to understand that it is not in their best interest to cheat because they will get caught and go to jail, that following the rules will bring them more benefits than cheating. We don’t have that rule culture anymore.
Why not go for castration of criminals then? :)
The US already has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. How many more resources do we have to expend in locking people up? God forbid we should look at the root causes of crime and address those.
Fucking psycho
Other than Lebanese, Mexico seems lacking in elite segmentation. Turkey and Mexico have a number of similarities, but on the PISA test, there's a tiny but distinct group of very high scorers in Turkey but less so in Mexico. One theory is the Counter-Reformation was so effective in Mexico it blocked the kind of elite formation processes that were conducive to Protestantism in Europe (e.g., Huguenots).
it seems there is also difference in between median scores of mexico and turkey.
- In Turkey, 74% of students attained at least Level 2 proficiency in reading. In Mexico, 55% of students attained at least Level 2 proficiency in reading. Some 63% of students in Turkey attained Level 2 or higher in mathematics. Some 44% of students in Mexico attained Level 2 or higher in mathematics.
Sources:
- https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA2018_CN_MEX.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjYipinmOKCAxXzQvEDHXESBusQFnoECCcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0Lo089DB56BvAcyYqH_e31
- https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA2018_CN_TUR.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjazoCfouKCAxWASvEDHWYWDqwQFnoECAwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw392lW2uOc8GW7mtB6ghiyv
Thanks very much - a really interesting article.
just want to make a minor clarification on the bengali data
- the original surname list dates to the period of a united bengal, which was (at the time) about 50% muslim and 50% hindu
- the clark et al graph is from late 20th century west bengal, which is 75% hindu and 25% muslim, and 1/3rd of the modern population of bengalis (2/3rd of which is in bangladesh)
also, fwiw, khan in the indian subcontinent is a acquired title and historically did connote someone who probably owned land or was in an elite service position in relation to the mughals or east indian company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_(title)#:~:text=The%20titles%20Khan%20and%20Khan,in%20army%20particularly%20in%20Gaud
So after all the motto "rich aren't special" is a hoax
Indeed, the rich are 'special.' But one should always distinguish wealth from intelligence. Not all wealthy people are intelligent, and not all intelligent people are wealthy. In fact, the preponderance of brilliant people are not wealthy. As I stated above, sadly, a lack of integrity can provide wealth and power.
In fact, there is a case to be made that the largely left leaning tendencies of the Academic cadre is precisely because in an increasingly materialistic society this academics feel that their intelectual and cognitive capacity should correspond to their wealth status. In other words, technocracy. If this is true it’s quite a discovery and tells us much about the current direction of politics and society in general.
Why should one always distinguish wealth from intelligence? What happens if one doesn’t?
A well-written, data-driven support of a hypothesis. I am not sure how broadly applicable this hypothesis is, but it has some compelling points. In support of a genetic component to success, for centuries in Europe, if a poor peasant child was smart, the way to get out of the grinding servitude of serfdom was to become a literate priest or monk which - in theory - removed a smart boy's genetics from the next generation. During that same period in Europe, education and scholarship were prized in the Jewish communities, so families wanted their girls to marry scholars and - next best - successful professionals, which meant the genes of smart males were passed down to the next generation.
Each of these examples can be explained by simple in-group dynamics, how tightly-knit communities leverage their social networks for mutual advantage, as well as high-level state interventions that secured recruitment and upward mobility for select groups. It seems you're attempting to justify outcomes through genetic determinism, but these patterns have nothing to do with genes. In fact, genetic research demonstrates that outbreeding (genetic diversity) rather than inbreeding is positively correlated with intelligence and other favorable traits. Elite status is maintained through social mechanisms, not genetic superiority.
One would have to have very little confidence in humanity to assume that genuine equality of opportunity wouldn't produce even more remarkable examples of human ingenuity. Imagine how much potential remains untapped when so many people lack equal access to opportunities that would allow them to fulfill their capabilities. The closest approximation to merit-based elite selection might be China's gaokao examination system, which provides a relatively uniform pathway to advancement regardless of background. One could argue that the correlation between this more accessible system and China's exceptional achievements in recent decades, along with their rapidly developing elite human capital, suggests what becomes possible when talent selection is broadened beyond inherited privilege
These people are just propagandists for those who already have power. I have witnessed first hand that creativity, and a hardy work ethic, do not foist you into higher status. In many cases it actually works to your detriment. Those who already have status, power and authority in an organization feel threatened by potentially more competent additions so they subtly restrict their upward mobility. I used to believe that everything was meritocratic and the most elite people rose through the ranks, but the ranks are heavily guarded by gatekeepers. In my own experience I have seen connections beat out more talented people frequently. Society would become incredibly unstable I think if merit were the driving force behind who attains what. You would quickly realize that everyone does in fact have some latent potential and there would be alot more churn in who sits in what seats. This is uncomfortable for the current occupiers to admit, so they say hey look all these people Im related to, who have been privileged by all of this nepotism and connections, are successful from all this nepotism. See! Its just we have better genetics! Pay no attention to every normal person in out familial group! That might undermine our entire justification for holding power over you. It’s totally circular, but these people know that and they don’t want you to know that. So they point out genetics.
Exactly. Just this morning I was thinking about EU leadership crying over being excluded from negotiations about their own future, while simultaneously promoting meritocracy tropes about "European values." If you randomly inspect a few of these leaders, the nepotism is striking: Ursula von der Leyen (daughter of CDU minister-president Ernst Albrecht), Kaja Kallas (daughter of former Estonian PM Siim Kallas), Jens Stoltenberg (son of Norwegian foreign minister Thorvald Stoltenberg), the list is endless.
We love mocking Hollywood nepo babies, yet we give political dynasties a free pass. These tiny elites enrich themselves through inherited networks, then self-congratulate on their "superior genes" and "leadership qualities." It's the same circular justification: pointing to their own success, built on connections, as proof of innate capability, while telling everyone else to just work harder. The genetic determinism argument is just aristocracy with a lab coat.
If y’all doubt this conclusion, or don’t know how to square it with egalitarian philosophical commitments please read Kate Harden’s book The Genetic Lottery. It’s a very accessible intro to the polygenic indices associated with many “success-indicating”phenotypes across happiness, health, wealth, intelligence, etc.
The selection effects of assortative mating are real, but it’s also possible to raise the floor through social policy such that we can still become more egalitarian.
Thanks for this article. Some other examples are the deliberate settling of Jews in Białystok, Eastern Poland for economic development of the region, and the recusant Catholics of England such as the Lane-Fox family, who had to be wealthy to avoid forced conversion by the Church of England.
The Norman invaders of England in 1066 were noted to be especially tall Vikings who had colonised northern France, giving them an obvious advantage at a time when combat was still hand-to-hand. Good nutrition helps too, which is obviously correlated with wealth.
If we are to wield Occam's razor, there is a far simpler explanation for the intelligence of Ashkenazi. Escaping pogroms requires foresight, resourcefulness and quick thinking. As such, ethnic repression is a brutal Darwinian selection mechanism.
An interesting read, but I'm still left kind of wondering what the point is? Of course genes have something to do with success and intelligence, but we are obviously better off without royalty. Obsession over lineage causes two problems, stolen glory by incompetent members of an otherwise elite family, and exclusion of highly intelligent and motivated people outside of any acknowledged elite lineage. So why bother obsessing over it? Obviously we aren't all created equal but we make a better society when we use it as our base assumption.
Do you think that eliteness is excluded from the otherwise universal biological pattern of regression to the mean?
Government officials regularly pass legislation that disadvantages their
The truth is that, in many cases, ALL groups are genetically different from the rest of the population. Selection works for everybody and I will say it works the most for the underclass. IQ has a lower correlation with income than schizophrenia.
In the UK, representation of working class people in journalism, media, etc is far lower now than 50 years ago. It’s usually attributed to middle- and upper-class blocking of opportunity, a conspiracy really. Could it be that improvements in educational attainment over the past 100 years or so fractionated off many capable people into higher classes? The working class is now a much lower percentage of the population than in the past, the residue of that distillation. (I know that sounds snobby, but my parents were solid working class, I’m middle class I suppose)
That's exactly what you would expect in a meritocracy. Talented people move up from their class depleting the potential for future talent of that class.
Very interesting!
This is the best article I have ever read, anywhere.
Very interesting but concerning Jews 2000 years ago a few small corrections:
"It was split between groups like the Samaritans, Essenes, Zealots, and most importantly the written Torah-promoting Sadducees who had adopted Hellenistic culture, and the written and oral Torah-promoting Pharisees who opposed the adoption of any aspects of Greek culture and language."
Samaritans were already not considered part of Judaism at this time.
The idea that the Sadducees adopted Hellenistic culture and were part of the elites is based more or less on nothing. It seems to come from a confusion between the "House of Zadok", a leading priestly family, and their supporters and the Sadducees but there is no indication they had anything to do with each others.
The Pharisees were *not* the same thing as the Rabbis that came after and did not believe in any oral Torah, a concept that belongs only to Rabbinic Judaism. The Pharisees did take part in the war against Rome very actively.
The Rabbis were a marginal group until the 3rd century at least and had no influence. They retro-actively imagined they had the same influence at the beginning than they had later but it is not true.
We do not know how many Jews there were in the 1st century. 5 millions ? Why not, but the number is based on a mistake from a middle ages monk, not real data.
We do not know how many Jews converted to Christianity, we do know that the first non Jewish Christians came from the "Judaizers", pagans interested in Judaism who sometimes did convert to Judaism. They were usually women and urban elites.
This is an interesting piece. I have two questions; I wonder if the author or anyone else is able to answer them? First, if elites are the product of trait heredity over generations, how would you account for regression towards the mean? Second, and I honestly don't mean to be too picky but it does seem important, isn't the article based entirely upon correlational data rather than cause and effect data with explanatory power? At face value (and it may be that you're able to answer these questions), the correlational data seems limited to setting up a hypothesis, which would normally be the start point and not the end point of research, rather than anything stronger.
I’ve always thought regression to the mean is just because of the unlikelihood of outliers marrying each other. If someone is 4 SD’s above average in say IQ, he will probably amass a lot of wealth, and then would want to trade the wealth for beauty in his wife, who is likely just average. Then with some basic assumptions, his children are probably 2 SD’s above average and so they “regressed”. This can be proven wrong, if we have two outlier parents in a category who still have a regressed child, do we have any studies on this?
Interestingly this can be avoided, by strongly limiting the dating pool similar to Jews or Brahmins, where their regression to the mean will be much lesser, which might be what we see in reality too (on average Jews or Brahmins always do better than most groups in intellectual activities)
I have heard that regression towards the mean doesn't prevent selection effects because your genes don't regress beyond those of your 4 grandparents.
What an interesting thought! The perfect rabbit hole for a Sunday morning! Sadly, there's no reason for regression to stop at that point so it'll continue through the generations to the mean. I think height might be the best example since it excludes social variables (leaving out nutritional effects and whatnot). The selection effect comes (tallness in a family apparently running for many generations) through height taking undue prominence with the descendants who are tall are being disproportionately highlighted. Like rock stars dying at 27.