3 ms·
You might be conflating nobility with Gregory Clark's thesis in "A Farewell to Alms". There never would have been enough nobles for their failsons to have any k
by defen 5y ago
You might be conflating nobility with Gregory Clark's thesis in "A Farewell to Alms". There never would have been enough nobles for their failsons to have any kind of measurable genetic impact on the wider society; plus nobles were never really selected for intelligence in the first place - they were the descendants of successful warlords.
- scarmig 5y agoAre successful warlords likely comparable in intelligence to landless peasants?
- TheOtherHobbes 5y agoAre VCs likely comparable in intelligence to competent engineers?
- slibhb 5y agoIf you believe in general intelligence, successful warlords are more likely to be intelligent.
- PeterisP 5y ago> There never would have been enough nobles for their failsons to have any kind of measurable genetic impact on the wider society; I'm not sure if this is true - I seem to recall studies that can clearly see a genetic impact of just a single particular noble (Gengis Khan), so it seems plausible that the genetic impact of nobles would be oversized as high-status males can have many children from the society in which they have violent power, and their children (even if bastards) have less issues with childhood malnutrition and early death.
- defen 5y agoThe proposed hypothesis though is that unsuccessful nobles spread their "favorable genes" by descending into the lower classes. To fall that far you'd have to be deeply in debt and not particularly high status.