4 ms·

It's genetics, why is this such a mystery? The whole point of evolution is that you pass on good traits. When people do well, they pair with other people who ar

It's genetics, why is this such a mystery? The whole point of evolution is that you pass on good traits. When people do well, they pair with other people who are good genetically, and through the generations, their children do well. Why is this such a mystery?

maxxxxx 10y ago
It's not only genetics. Parents who do well know how the system works and pass that knowledge on to their children. Children who come from poverty have a lot of learning to do and it's hard to do this without role models.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  Don't forget connections. If your parents know the right people, even in passing, it can help you in substantial ways, and the compounding effects of such benefits early in life (e.g. being able to get into a good college, being able to find a decent job after college, etc.) can translate to significant social mobility.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- shostack 10y ago
  The compounding effects of this learning gap can't be overstated. One of my best friends who is very intelligent and successful came from a working class family that didn't emphasize sound personal finance education to say the least. He kept his savings in HS in his "sock in a drawer" account. I came from an upper middle class family that was the opposite. I was given a share or two of stocks for birthday gifts sometimes (often at my request instead of toys) when I was young to educate me on their value and was taught from a very young age to invest, save in a bank, build credit, and live below my means. While my friend is doing well financially, you can perhaps guess at how much of his money is invested vs mine. This story plays out in numerous other ways that also can lead to compounding effects with things like education, health, criminal activity, etc. These things are picked up on by children from all parts of the family. If your family generally has their act together, knows how to be smart with money, etc. there's probably a good chance of that rubbing off on kids which sets them down a certain path in life that might be very different otherwise.
  - maxxxxx 10y ago
    Did you want to say "The compounding effects of this learning gap can't be overstated?"
    - shostack 10y ago
      Doh, thank you for the catch and pardon my sleep-deprived typo.
  - Camillo 10y ago
    I have a friend who keeps lots of money in bank accounts, too. He is aware that he could be investing it, but he just doesn't seem to care. It appears to be half "everyone is expecting another financial crisis anyway, if you buy now you're buying high" and half "I just can't be arsed".
icantdrive55 10y ago
Because it's just wrong. Let's just take to first Dingus that comes to mind. Eric Trump, or that brother, for instance. Is there one person here that feels Uday, or Qusay wouldn't be mixing paint at HD, if not for that father? I can do this all day. (I live in Marin County. The place your boss will retire to, if he hits it big. I know these people. I know their kids. Their kids success is nothing more than wealth. Wait--it's a bit more complicated. They do have access to dad's friends, acquaintances, lawyer/accountant cronies, and then there's aunt Helen. Who's always there to help out when daddy's love child is lost in life.) Wow--HN is losing it?
corecoder 10y ago
Genetics do not work that way. The problem is that there is too little variation inside families and too much among families. Let's say that there are exactly two alleles: successful and not successful. So, successful people pairs with successful people and have successful offspring, as you propose. But then, there should be little variability among successful unrelated families, and that is just not so. Let's say that there are many different alleles that combine in lots of ways: then, there should be lots of variability inside families.
- whenwillitstop 10y ago
  "But then, there should be little variability among successful unrelated families, and that is just not so." This does not follow from your first statement. It's not a logical conclusion. For your reduction to a binary set of alleles it does, but it does not come close to being an analogy for real life.
  - corecoder 10y ago
    Let me try to be more clear: I make two opposite hypotheses: two alleles versus many alleles. The two alleles hypothesis would imply little variability among families, many alleles would imply much variability inside families. Where is my logical error?
    - smallnamespace 10y ago
      Assortative mating: it would tend to reduce variability within families, while preserving inter-family variability.
    - nostrademons 10y ago
      Many alleles does not imply more variability if there's a chance of some of those alleles cancelling out. Think about it in terms of coin flips. One coin flip is random: you get heads or tails with 50% probability. A small number of coin flips can lead to large swings. However, many coin flips reliably produces a Gaussian, with only small statistical fluctuations. Now imagine that you decree that for the first ten coin flips, if the result comes up tails you'll ignore it. With many flips, you will still get a (somewhat smaller) Gaussian, but with the mean # of heads shifted over by 5. This is what natural selection & assortative mating does: it doesn't prevent the millions of coin flips from happening, but it eliminates some number of "known bad" outcomes, which will shift the mean over by some amount even as variability remains roughly constant.
code_sardaukar 10y ago
The genetic explanation doesn't even require a correlation between the traits of people who pair up. Suppose your grandparents genetic "quality" is statistically independent, so you have four quantities g1, g2, g3, g4. Your parents quality is approximately (g1 + g2) / 2 and (g3 + g4) / 2 and yours is (g1 + g2 + g3 + g4) / 4. Now if we assume that income is a noisy measure of your "g" then it will follow that your income is correlated with your grandparents' even after accounting for your parents' income.
ap22213 10y ago
While I agree that genetics can play a part, it's certainly not the case that people who 'do well' necessarily 'pair with other people who are good genetically.'

maxxxxx 10y ago

It's not only genetics. Parents who do well know how the system works and pass that knowledge on to their children. Children who come from poverty have a lot of learning to do and it's hard to do this without role models.

enraged_camel 10y ago
Don't forget connections. If your parents know the right people, even in passing, it can help you in substantial ways, and the compounding effects of such benefits early in life (e.g. being able to get into a good college, being able to find a decent job after college, etc.) can translate to significant social mobility.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
shostack 10y ago
The compounding effects of this learning gap can't be overstated. One of my best friends who is very intelligent and successful came from a working class family that didn't emphasize sound personal finance education to say the least. He kept his savings in HS in his "sock in a drawer" account. I came from an upper middle class family that was the opposite. I was given a share or two of stocks for birthday gifts sometimes (often at my request instead of toys) when I was young to educate me on their value and was taught from a very young age to invest, save in a bank, build credit, and live below my means. While my friend is doing well financially, you can perhaps guess at how much of his money is invested vs mine. This story plays out in numerous other ways that also can lead to compounding effects with things like education, health, criminal activity, etc. These things are picked up on by children from all parts of the family. If your family generally has their act together, knows how to be smart with money, etc. there's probably a good chance of that rubbing off on kids which sets them down a certain path in life that might be very different otherwise.
- maxxxxx 10y ago
  Did you want to say "The compounding effects of this learning gap can't be overstated?"
  - shostack 10y ago
    Doh, thank you for the catch and pardon my sleep-deprived typo.
- Camillo 10y ago
  I have a friend who keeps lots of money in bank accounts, too. He is aware that he could be investing it, but he just doesn't seem to care. It appears to be half "everyone is expecting another financial crisis anyway, if you buy now you're buying high" and half "I just can't be arsed".

icantdrive55 10y ago

Because it's just wrong. Let's just take to first Dingus that comes to mind. Eric Trump, or that brother, for instance. Is there one person here that feels Uday, or Qusay wouldn't be mixing paint at HD, if not for that father? I can do this all day. (I live in Marin County. The place your boss will retire to, if he hits it big. I know these people. I know their kids. Their kids success is nothing more than wealth. Wait--it's a bit more complicated. They do have access to dad's friends, acquaintances, lawyer/accountant cronies, and then there's aunt Helen. Who's always there to help out when daddy's love child is lost in life.) Wow--HN is losing it?

corecoder 10y ago

Genetics do not work that way. The problem is that there is too little variation inside families and too much among families. Let's say that there are exactly two alleles: successful and not successful. So, successful people pairs with successful people and have successful offspring, as you propose. But then, there should be little variability among successful unrelated families, and that is just not so. Let's say that there are many different alleles that combine in lots of ways: then, there should be lots of variability inside families.

whenwillitstop 10y ago
"But then, there should be little variability among successful unrelated families, and that is just not so." This does not follow from your first statement. It's not a logical conclusion. For your reduction to a binary set of alleles it does, but it does not come close to being an analogy for real life.
- corecoder 10y ago
  Let me try to be more clear: I make two opposite hypotheses: two alleles versus many alleles. The two alleles hypothesis would imply little variability among families, many alleles would imply much variability inside families. Where is my logical error?
  - smallnamespace 10y ago
    Assortative mating: it would tend to reduce variability within families, while preserving inter-family variability.
  - nostrademons 10y ago
    Many alleles does not imply more variability if there's a chance of some of those alleles cancelling out. Think about it in terms of coin flips. One coin flip is random: you get heads or tails with 50% probability. A small number of coin flips can lead to large swings. However, many coin flips reliably produces a Gaussian, with only small statistical fluctuations. Now imagine that you decree that for the first ten coin flips, if the result comes up tails you'll ignore it. With many flips, you will still get a (somewhat smaller) Gaussian, but with the mean # of heads shifted over by 5. This is what natural selection & assortative mating does: it doesn't prevent the millions of coin flips from happening, but it eliminates some number of "known bad" outcomes, which will shift the mean over by some amount even as variability remains roughly constant.

code_sardaukar 10y ago

The genetic explanation doesn't even require a correlation between the traits of people who pair up. Suppose your grandparents genetic "quality" is statistically independent, so you have four quantities g1, g2, g3, g4. Your parents quality is approximately (g1 + g2) / 2 and (g3 + g4) / 2 and yours is (g1 + g2 + g3 + g4) / 4. Now if we assume that income is a noisy measure of your "g" then it will follow that your income is correlated with your grandparents' even after accounting for your parents' income.

ap22213 10y ago

While I agree that genetics can play a part, it's certainly not the case that people who 'do well' necessarily 'pair with other people who are good genetically.'