5 ms·

> merit is highly hereditable That's a foolish statement on its face. "Merit" quantifies whether someone deserves something, and it depends both on the deserve

by bccdee 1y ago

> merit is highly hereditable That's a foolish statement on its face. "Merit" quantifies whether someone deserves something, and it depends both on the deserved thing and the rubric for judgment. Some forms of merit are fairly heritable (basketball skill) and others aren't (trivia knowledge). My grandparents didn't make money by passing admission exams for the grade 1 gifted program.

lostmsu 1y ago
> quantifies whether someone deserves something That's one definition of the term, but this subthread is talking about the other ones. > Superior quality or worth; excellence > Demonstrated ability or achievement These are highly hereditable. > My grandparents didn't make money by passing admission exams for the grade 1 gifted program. It does not matter for the discussion. The point being discussed is whether skills or wealth came first, and heritability of skills indicate the first option. There's no data, including your grandparents, that would indicate the second one.
- bccdee 1y ago
  "Demonstrated ability or achievement" is not highly hereditable. The word "demonstrated" should make that obvious. If I learn to play guitar and then have a kid, that kid will not know how to play guitar. Aptitudes may be heritable, but an aptitude is very different from a skill. Potential is only useful once it's been actualized, and doing that takes resources. > whether skills or wealth came first Wealth comes first. The son's education is paid for with his father's money. We aren't born with skills.
  - lostmsu 1y ago
    > "Demonstrated ability or achievement" is not highly hereditable. False > The word "demonstrated" should make that obvious. No, it should not. Try to explain why you believe that. > If I learn to play guitar and then have a kid, that kid will not know how to play guitar. You full well know this is not how this works. If you try to learn guitar and fail, there's a good chance your kid will also fail if tries. And if you try and become exceptional there's a good chance if your kid would try they would also play way above average. That's what hereditability means. > Wealth comes first. The son's education is paid for with his father's money. Here's a good obvious point as to why wealth does not come first (that unlike yours is undeniable): how did the first person obtain the skill? There was neither anyone to teach it, nor wealth to pay for it. > We aren't born with skills. We most certainly are born with skills. Speed of learning is a skill.
    - bccdee 1y ago
      > No, it should not. Try to explain why you believe that. Uh, okay. Let's do a thought experiment: Suppose I take some violin lessons and acquire an as-yet-undemonstrated ability to play the instrument. Later, I perform at a violin recital; after this demonstration, my violin abilities have become demonstrated. Then I have a kid: 1. Can that infant child play violin? No. Thus they have not inherited my ability to play violin. 2. Has that infant child ever had a violin recital which demonstrated their ability to play violin? No. Thus they DEFINITELY do not possess a demonstrated ability to play violin. Again, this should be obvious. I feel like you must be misunderstanding what the words "ability" and "demonstrated" mean. > If you try to learn guitar and fail, there's a good chance your kid will also fail if tries. You are no longer talking about "demonstrated ability." You are describing a lack of aptitude for guitar, which (as I said in my last post) is a different thing. Besides, pretty much anyone with working hands can learn to play guitar. It's not really a question of aptitude, it's a question of investing time and money into learning. Most skills are like that. > We most certainly are born with skills. Speed of learning is a skill. Well, no. It's an aptitude. aptitude /ăp′tĭ-too͞d″, -tyoo͞d″/ noun An inherent ability, as for learning; a talent. skill /skĭl/ noun Proficiency, facility, or dexterity that is acquired or developed through training or experience. > how did the first person obtain the skill What "first person"? I'm not talking about cavemen, I'm talking about our society and the impact that the socioeconomic status of a person's family has on their career relative to the impact of their innate intelligence. If you want to tell me that those factors are closely linked, you're flatly wrong: Many rich people are stupid, and many poor people are intelligent.
      - lostmsu 1y ago
        > Again, this should be obvious. I feel like you must be misunderstanding what the words "ability" and "demonstrated" mean. You are talking about everything else except the subject: "heritability". > which is a different thing Statistically unrelated different thing? Most certainly no. Causally unrelated? Very probably no. > Many rich people are stupid, and many poor people are intelligent. That doesn't matter. What matters is exact statistic. And I didn't even need to look it up to know which way it goes.

by bccdee 1y ago

lostmsu 1y ago

> quantifies whether someone deserves something That's one definition of the term, but this subthread is talking about the other ones. > Superior quality or worth; excellence > Demonstrated ability or achievement These are highly hereditable. > My grandparents didn't make money by passing admission exams for the grade 1 gifted program. It does not matter for the discussion. The point being discussed is whether skills or wealth came first, and heritability of skills indicate the first option. There's no data, including your grandparents, that would indicate the second one.

bccdee 1y ago
"Demonstrated ability or achievement" is not highly hereditable. The word "demonstrated" should make that obvious. If I learn to play guitar and then have a kid, that kid will not know how to play guitar. Aptitudes may be heritable, but an aptitude is very different from a skill. Potential is only useful once it's been actualized, and doing that takes resources. > whether skills or wealth came first Wealth comes first. The son's education is paid for with his father's money. We aren't born with skills.
- lostmsu 1y ago
  > "Demonstrated ability or achievement" is not highly hereditable. False > The word "demonstrated" should make that obvious. No, it should not. Try to explain why you believe that. > If I learn to play guitar and then have a kid, that kid will not know how to play guitar. You full well know this is not how this works. If you try to learn guitar and fail, there's a good chance your kid will also fail if tries. And if you try and become exceptional there's a good chance if your kid would try they would also play way above average. That's what hereditability means. > Wealth comes first. The son's education is paid for with his father's money. Here's a good obvious point as to why wealth does not come first (that unlike yours is undeniable): how did the first person obtain the skill? There was neither anyone to teach it, nor wealth to pay for it. > We aren't born with skills. We most certainly are born with skills. Speed of learning is a skill.
  - bccdee 1y ago
    > No, it should not. Try to explain why you believe that. Uh, okay. Let's do a thought experiment: Suppose I take some violin lessons and acquire an as-yet-undemonstrated ability to play the instrument. Later, I perform at a violin recital; after this demonstration, my violin abilities have become demonstrated. Then I have a kid: 1. Can that infant child play violin? No. Thus they have not inherited my ability to play violin. 2. Has that infant child ever had a violin recital which demonstrated their ability to play violin? No. Thus they DEFINITELY do not possess a demonstrated ability to play violin. Again, this should be obvious. I feel like you must be misunderstanding what the words "ability" and "demonstrated" mean. > If you try to learn guitar and fail, there's a good chance your kid will also fail if tries. You are no longer talking about "demonstrated ability." You are describing a lack of aptitude for guitar, which (as I said in my last post) is a different thing. Besides, pretty much anyone with working hands can learn to play guitar. It's not really a question of aptitude, it's a question of investing time and money into learning. Most skills are like that. > We most certainly are born with skills. Speed of learning is a skill. Well, no. It's an aptitude. aptitude /ăp′tĭ-too͞d″, -tyoo͞d″/ noun An inherent ability, as for learning; a talent. skill /skĭl/ noun Proficiency, facility, or dexterity that is acquired or developed through training or experience. > how did the first person obtain the skill What "first person"? I'm not talking about cavemen, I'm talking about our society and the impact that the socioeconomic status of a person's family has on their career relative to the impact of their innate intelligence. If you want to tell me that those factors are closely linked, you're flatly wrong: Many rich people are stupid, and many poor people are intelligent.
    - lostmsu 1y ago
      > Again, this should be obvious. I feel like you must be misunderstanding what the words "ability" and "demonstrated" mean. You are talking about everything else except the subject: "heritability". > which is a different thing Statistically unrelated different thing? Most certainly no. Causally unrelated? Very probably no. > Many rich people are stupid, and many poor people are intelligent. That doesn't matter. What matters is exact statistic. And I didn't even need to look it up to know which way it goes.