5 ms·
Sure, before I was derailed by education, my point was that society is not meritocratic. So we're now agreeing. We don't know if genetics is an effect here bec
by learnstats2 12y ago
Sure, before I was derailed by education, my point was that society is not meritocratic. So we're now agreeing.
We don't know if genetics is an effect here because we can't eliminate background wealth - even twin studies are broken because twins get adopted into similar environments.
But, the suggestion from twin studies is that income is primarily environmental, i.e. not genetic. Here's a fresh reference: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141106113202.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141106113202.ht...
I suggest that it's fashionable to say social inequality is down to genetics - it certainly happens a lot in these forums and it comes up especially when people would rather pass the buck for difficult social problems.
- lmm 12y agoGenetics aren't the only thing we inherit, and aren't the only possible source of differences in merit. It could equally be cultural differences - e.g. attitudes towards education, work, society and so on - that would be passed on even to adopted children, and would make people genuinely better at their jobs. Even if the advantages of the rich are purely environmental, that in no way proves that they're not meritocratic.