5 ms·

The author uses a raft of terms he doesn't bother to define -- "top university", "prestigious occupation", "social status", and so on, so much that it makes the

The author uses a raft of terms he doesn't bother to define -- "top university", "prestigious occupation", "social status", and so on, so much that it makes the article meaningless. IQ, and all the other "objective" measures he leaves as an exercise to the reader to define, mostly measure how well-adapted a person is to society such as it currently works right now. If you believe we've arrived at the society we have now due to "human nature" or some other kind of natural settling, and not, to just pick one alternate hypothesis, an unimaginable amount of violence and plunder carried out across the globe over the last few centuries, then the conclusions in this article make sense. Otherwise, it probably has some holes.

tomp 11y ago
I think the basic premise of the article is completely sound: in a meeitocratic society, the inequality increases approximately to the degree that IQ is inherited.
- varjag 11y ago
  Is there reliable evidence that the IQ is inherited in quantities that actually matter? I know it's a popular premise, but this article takes it to sure-shot levels.
  - Malician 11y ago
    http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-67-2-130.pdf http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-67-2-130.pdf It seems very thoroughly accepted - among researchers who have studied the subject. The popular press produces a lot of articles downplaying the subject. For example, if a study shows that IQ is likely the result of thousands of genes combined rather than just one or two, there will be ten articles the next day saying "scientists unable to find genetic basis for IQ" and "IQ not genetic."
    - varjag 11y ago
      No, what I mean is that there are genetic factors that aren't necessarily hereditary, or even hereditary but not within the immediate offspring. E.g. my son has the same birthmark as my mother but I don't. Same for a number of Mendelian trait diseases. I am not questioning that IQ might well be a genetic factor, just wondering if there are any conclusive studies that it's directly inherited. Because the study you linked is very open-ended on this, and this has been core premise for the article discussed.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > No, what I mean is that there are genetic factors that aren't necessarily hereditary, or even hereditary but not within the immediate offspring. E.g. my son has the same birthmark as my mother but I don't. Same for a number of Mendelian trait diseases. This is not genetic but not "necessarily hereditary", this is hereditary, but requiring a combination of inherited "things" to manifest. (The typical simple case of "Mendelian trait diseases" to which this applies are recessive traits, which require inheriting a copy of the gene from each parent to manifest.) IQ, not being a binary trait, doesn't work the same way, and probably (even to the extent it is genetic) the product of isn't a single, simple genetic trait of any kind, but influenced by a number of different genes. And, also, influenced by lots of environmental factors (and it may turn out that the way in which some of those environmental factors contribute depends on which combination of genetic factors are present.)
        varjag 11y ago
        > This is not genetic but not "necessarily hereditary", this is hereditary, but requiring a combination of inherited "things" to manifest. Down syndrome is a result of genetic expression but is not a hereditary trait. General, normal human features (like having 5 fingers on each arm and feet) are also genetic but so universal it makes no point describing them as "hereditary". > IQ, not being a binary trait, doesn't work the same way, and probably (even to the extent it is genetic) the product of isn't a single, simple genetic trait of any kind, but influenced by a number of different genes. If it's a function of thousand features as been suggested, this makes the odds for direct trait inheritance not particularly good, no?
  - michaelt 11y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ There seem to be big differences in correlation between identical twins and fraternal twins, which is a pretty strong indicator there's a genetic component.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    There is quite reliable evidence that: 1) IQ "capacity" is genetic, and, as such, inherited. (Though its probably not a simple single trait, but a consequence of interactions of multiple traits.) 2) That actual IQ depends on both genetic capacity and a large number of environmental factors.

tomp 11y ago

I think the basic premise of the article is completely sound: in a meeitocratic society, the inequality increases approximately to the degree that IQ is inherited.

varjag 11y ago
Is there reliable evidence that the IQ is inherited in quantities that actually matter? I know it's a popular premise, but this article takes it to sure-shot levels.
- Malician 11y ago
  http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-67-2-130.pdf http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-67-2-130.pdf It seems very thoroughly accepted - among researchers who have studied the subject. The popular press produces a lot of articles downplaying the subject. For example, if a study shows that IQ is likely the result of thousands of genes combined rather than just one or two, there will be ten articles the next day saying "scientists unable to find genetic basis for IQ" and "IQ not genetic."
  - varjag 11y ago
    No, what I mean is that there are genetic factors that aren't necessarily hereditary, or even hereditary but not within the immediate offspring. E.g. my son has the same birthmark as my mother but I don't. Same for a number of Mendelian trait diseases. I am not questioning that IQ might well be a genetic factor, just wondering if there are any conclusive studies that it's directly inherited. Because the study you linked is very open-ended on this, and this has been core premise for the article discussed.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > No, what I mean is that there are genetic factors that aren't necessarily hereditary, or even hereditary but not within the immediate offspring. E.g. my son has the same birthmark as my mother but I don't. Same for a number of Mendelian trait diseases. This is not genetic but not "necessarily hereditary", this is hereditary, but requiring a combination of inherited "things" to manifest. (The typical simple case of "Mendelian trait diseases" to which this applies are recessive traits, which require inheriting a copy of the gene from each parent to manifest.) IQ, not being a binary trait, doesn't work the same way, and probably (even to the extent it is genetic) the product of isn't a single, simple genetic trait of any kind, but influenced by a number of different genes. And, also, influenced by lots of environmental factors (and it may turn out that the way in which some of those environmental factors contribute depends on which combination of genetic factors are present.)
      - varjag 11y ago
        > This is not genetic but not "necessarily hereditary", this is hereditary, but requiring a combination of inherited "things" to manifest. Down syndrome is a result of genetic expression but is not a hereditary trait. General, normal human features (like having 5 fingers on each arm and feet) are also genetic but so universal it makes no point describing them as "hereditary". > IQ, not being a binary trait, doesn't work the same way, and probably (even to the extent it is genetic) the product of isn't a single, simple genetic trait of any kind, but influenced by a number of different genes. If it's a function of thousand features as been suggested, this makes the odds for direct trait inheritance not particularly good, no?
- michaelt 11y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ There seem to be big differences in correlation between identical twins and fraternal twins, which is a pretty strong indicator there's a genetic component.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  There is quite reliable evidence that: 1) IQ "capacity" is genetic, and, as such, inherited. (Though its probably not a simple single trait, but a consequence of interactions of multiple traits.) 2) That actual IQ depends on both genetic capacity and a large number of environmental factors.