4 ms·
I would be absolutely riveted at an examination of which forms of 'elite' status are the most durable across generations. You could put maybe "son of a famous
by warcher 12y ago
I would be absolutely riveted at an examination of which forms of 'elite' status are the most durable across generations.
You could put maybe "son of a famous reality tv star" on one end of the spectrum and "daughter of a president" on the other. But what's in between would be very interesting. Or maybe just confirmation of things we already suspected, as this paper seemed to be.
- barry-cotter 12y agoThis isn't confirmation of something people expected or social mobility would never have become such a talking point and campaign. The data suggests social mobility is an intractable problem. It looks like to a very large extent winners are born, not made.
- 001sky 12y agoPart of the problems is the heterodox result in a Culture that values "meritocracy". It ins't so much that the result is one way or the other, but that the narrative is both wholly wrong in kind as well as degree. (The conclusion is faulty and so is the premise). Trust makes the world go round, not merit. And trust is made but not borne, which is why the genetic or hereditary forumlation is not correct either. The bigger question is why do some people become trustworthy and others not? To a first approximation, the answe is "because he/she is like me".
- TheOtherHobbes 12y agoOr it means networks of privilege are remarkably persistent. Or perhaps that you can't tell anything useful from surnames without doing a full genealogical survey just to check that these 'winners' are actually related. The suggestion that a talent for social climbing is innate is perennially popular with a certain segment of the population. Wilkinson and Pickett (2009) make a good counterargument.