Theme: Class

WHY SO LITTLE SOCIAL ROTATION? IT’S PRETTY MUCH ALL NATURE.

–“If genetics dominates, then the persistence rate should be the same at the top and at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Moreover, endogamous social groups—groups whose members do not marry outside the group—will be completely persistent in their status, high or low. Groups that are on average high or low on the social scale will not succeed or fail socially because of any distinctive culture that they adopted. Instead their success or failure will be the result purely of their positive or negative selection from a larger population. The more distinctive they are now in social status, the smaller a share they will be of the descendants of their parent population.”–

(INVOLUNTARY REDISTRIBUTION IS GENOCIDE)

–“Only if genetics is the main element in determining economic success, if nature trumps nurture, is there a built-in mechanism that explains the observed regression. That mechanism is the intermarriage of the children of rich and educated lineages with successful, upwardly mobile children of poor and uneducated lineages. Even though there is strong assortative mating—because this is based on the social phenotype created in part
by luck—those of higher-than-average innate talent tend to mate with those of lesser ability and regress to the mean. Similarly, those of lower-than-average innate talent tend to marry unlucky offspring of higher average innate talent.”–

ITS ALL GENES – THE WORLD IS A MUCH FAIRER PLACE THAN IT SEEMS.

–”
1) First, it means the world is a much fairer place than we intuit. Innate talent, not inherited privilege, is the main source of economic success.

2) Second, it suggests that the large investment made by the upper classes in the care and raising of their children is of no avail in preventing long-run downward mobility: the wealthy Manhattan attorneys who hire coaches for their toddlers to ensure placement in elite kindergartens cannot prevent the eventual regression of their descendants to the mean.

3) Third, government interventions to increase social mobility are unlikely to have much impact unless they affect the rate of intermarriage between levels of the social hierarchy and between ethnic groups.

4) Fourth, emphasis on racial, ethnic, and religious differences allows persistent social stratification through the barriers they create to this intermarriage. In order for a society to increase social mobility over the long run, it must achieve the cultural homogeneity that maximizes intermarriage rates between social groups.
“–

Justification. Dunning Kreuger. Envy. Reproductive Strategy. All guarantee that despite the fact his is true, it is in the lower majority’s interests to deny it. Unless we pay them well to have but one child, and punish them severely for having more. Personally I think that’s a pretty good deal. I’d have just one child if someone would pay me 10-20K a year for it, and would take it away if I had more.

I don’t advocate redistribution for the purpose of equality. I advocate it for the purpose of suppressing breeding, and paying people to assist in the construction of property rights and the commons that facilitates the voluntary organization of production.

WHY SO LITTLE SOCIAL ROTATION? IT’S PRETTY MUCH ALL NATURE.

–“If genetics dominates, then the persistence rate should be the same at the top and at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Moreover, endogamous social groups—groups whose members do not marry outside the group—will be completely persistent in their status, high or low. Groups that are on average high or low on the social scale will not succeed or fail socially because of any distinctive culture that they adopted. Instead their success or failure will be the result purely of their positive or negative selection from a larger population. The more distinctive they are now in social status, the smaller a share they will be of the descendants of their parent population.”–

(INVOLUNTARY REDISTRIBUTION IS GENOCIDE)

–“Only if genetics is the main element in determining economic success, if nature trumps nurture, is there a built-in mechanism that explains the observed regression. That mechanism is the intermarriage of the children of rich and educated lineages with successful, upwardly mobile children of poor and uneducated lineages. Even though there is strong assortative mating—because this is based on the social phenotype created in part
by luck—those of higher-than-average innate talent tend to mate with those of lesser ability and regress to the mean. Similarly, those of lower-than-average innate talent tend to marry unlucky offspring of higher average innate talent.”–

ITS ALL GENES – THE WORLD IS A MUCH FAIRER PLACE THAN IT SEEMS.

–”
1) First, it means the world is a much fairer place than we intuit. Innate talent, not inherited privilege, is the main source of economic success.

2) Second, it suggests that the large investment made by the upper classes in the care and raising of their children is of no avail in preventing long-run downward mobility: the wealthy Manhattan attorneys who hire coaches for their toddlers to ensure placement in elite kindergartens cannot prevent the eventual regression of their descendants to the mean.

3) Third, government interventions to increase social mobility are unlikely to have much impact unless they affect the rate of intermarriage between levels of the social hierarchy and between ethnic groups.

4) Fourth, emphasis on racial, ethnic, and religious differences allows persistent social stratification through the barriers they create to this intermarriage. In order for a society to increase social mobility over the long run, it must achieve the cultural homogeneity that maximizes intermarriage rates between social groups.
“–

Justification. Dunning Kreuger. Envy. Reproductive Strategy. All guarantee that despite the fact his is true, it is in the lower majority’s interests to deny it. Unless we pay them well to have but one child, and punish them severely for having more. Personally I think that’s a pretty good deal. I’d have just one child if someone would pay me 10-20K a year for it, and would take it away if I had more.

I don’t advocate redistribution for the purpose of equality. I advocate it for the purpose of suppressing breeding, and paying people to assist in the construction of property rights and the commons that facilitates the voluntary organization of production.