4 ms·

> 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 nob

> 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 ago
Just 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?