4 ms·
To become a noble you would generally have to have done something of great note. I'd think someone of higher intelligence would have a higher likelihood to do t
by rowanG077 5y ago
To become a noble you would generally have to have done something of great note. I'd think someone of higher intelligence would have a higher likelihood to do that.
- lumost 5y agoIs there any backing to this? As I recall feudal societies in both Europe and Japan had the origin of "nobility" in land ownership/control. If you could successfully hold a piece of land as your own you were a noble. You can imagine this as a form of de facto rule.
- pbalau 5y agoHolding into a piece of land is not a given. The fact that one could hold into that could mean that individual was smarter than the individuals that did not.
- KittenInABox 5y agoIt's pretty easy to hold onto a piece of land if you're the only one who is well-fed, literate, and capable of hiring and feeding personal guards.
- rowanG077 5y agoIsn't that the point? A person with superior genes is more likely to have those qualities.
- api 5y agoYour ancestors were probably above average in either intelligence or physical ability. That doesn't mean you are after a century or two of noble inbreeding.
- rowanG077 5y agoThe point is that inbreeding while having some bad outcomes can also have the good outcome of the nobility having higher intelligence. You can't just argue when someone says: "this is A", with: "No this is B". At least put some substance behind it.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- rendall 5y ago> To become a noble you would generally have to have done something of great note This might be arguably true for the 1st generation, the one who becomes a noble. Maybe this noble marries another 1st or 2nd generation noble and they have children who are also pretty great. But regression to the mean indicates that, at best, future generations will inevitably be average, and half will be below average. Especially, and this cannot be over emphasized, when they interbreed. Add into the mix that nobility is conferred via political maneuvering, and it's not guaranteed that even the 1st generation was all that notable
- rowanG077 5y agoJust to note that regression to the mean doesn't apply here. Nobles back in the day most of the time married only other nobles. A kid of 2 extremes is not a new sample of the same random variable the 1st gen noble was taken from. If that were the case evolution would never work, your more fit specimens would regress to the mean. Which is obviously not the case. Plus I would also argue that successful political maneuvering is a sign of superior fitness.
- rendall 5y ago> "Just to note that regression to the mean doesn't apply here" Ok? You didn't really explain why. Surely by extreme you don't mean "being noble". You're asserting that 2 nobles will have a child who is "extremely noble"? Do you also believe that 2 rich people will have a child who is, genetically, "extremely rich"? That over generations, these descendents will just be inherently richer and richer?
- TheCoelacanth 5y agoThe only thing of great note most nobles did to become noble is to emerge from the right vagina.