6 ms·

So is there no genetic component to this at all? I see parental income and educational achievement mentioned, but not parental genes. Kids who got got good gen

So is there no genetic component to this at all? I see parental income and educational achievement mentioned, but not parental genes. Kids who got got good genes from their parents are more likely to go to college. And the parents who gave the kids good genes are likely to have high income. Genetics is the most important ingredient here.

twblalock 11y ago
Can you provide any evidence for this assertion? Because the OP provided evidence.
knowtheory 11y ago
If that were the case you would expect to find that adoption did very weird things to educational attainment in families. And i can't find any evidence to assert that that's the case. "Genetics is the most important ingredient here." is a pretty extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
- thedufer 11y ago
  I don't know about _most_ important, but genetics is definitely a large factor. Quoting from Heritability of Lifetime Income[1] > we find that 24% (54%) of the variance of women’s (men’s) lifetime income is due to genetic factors and that the contribution of the shared environment is negligible The Promises and Pitfalls of Genoeconomics[2] sees similar results, coming up with 46% and 58% heritability in women and men, respectively. There's plenty of research here. "Heritability of income" is a good search term. [1] https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/38881/HECER_DP364.pdf https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/38881/HECER... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3592970/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3592970/
- waqf 11y ago
  ""Humans are descended from monkeys" / "The Earth goes round the Sun" / … is a pretty extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Dismissing as "extraordinary" any claim to which you are politically opposed is not good science. (Frankly, the Sagan quote is in itself not good science until you can get everyone to agree on what is "extraordinary".) Meanwhile, an entirely appropriate riposte to GP would have been: ""Genetics is the most important ingredient here." is a claim, and claims require evidence."
- interlocutor 11y ago
  See: http://www.nyu.edu/econ/user/bisina/Chapter5_Sacerdote.pdf http://www.nyu.edu/econ/user/bisina/Chapter5_Sacerdote.pdf Excerpt: "Surely it would be difficult to deny that genetic effects matter. Just look at how much more biological siblings resemble each other on education and income than do adoptive siblings." So maybe genetics is not the most important ingredient, but saying genetics is not relevant to this discussion is astounding. Smarter parents beget smarter kids -- that's not a controversial statement. IQ is heritable to a large extend. Smarter parents tend to be wealthier. (This is not true everywhere, but it is mostly true in the USA, the land of opportunity.) Smarter kids do better in college. That's not a controversial statement either.
- millermp12 11y ago
  Look at Plomins studies. Home environment has almost zero correlation.

twblalock 11y ago

Can you provide any evidence for this assertion? Because the OP provided evidence.

knowtheory 11y ago

If that were the case you would expect to find that adoption did very weird things to educational attainment in families. And i can't find any evidence to assert that that's the case. "Genetics is the most important ingredient here." is a pretty extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

thedufer 11y ago
I don't know about _most_ important, but genetics is definitely a large factor. Quoting from Heritability of Lifetime Income[1] > we find that 24% (54%) of the variance of women’s (men’s) lifetime income is due to genetic factors and that the contribution of the shared environment is negligible The Promises and Pitfalls of Genoeconomics[2] sees similar results, coming up with 46% and 58% heritability in women and men, respectively. There's plenty of research here. "Heritability of income" is a good search term. [1] https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/38881/HECER_DP364.pdf https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/38881/HECER... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3592970/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3592970/
waqf 11y ago
""Humans are descended from monkeys" / "The Earth goes round the Sun" / … is a pretty extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Dismissing as "extraordinary" any claim to which you are politically opposed is not good science. (Frankly, the Sagan quote is in itself not good science until you can get everyone to agree on what is "extraordinary".) Meanwhile, an entirely appropriate riposte to GP would have been: ""Genetics is the most important ingredient here." is a claim, and claims require evidence."
interlocutor 11y ago
See: http://www.nyu.edu/econ/user/bisina/Chapter5_Sacerdote.pdf http://www.nyu.edu/econ/user/bisina/Chapter5_Sacerdote.pdf Excerpt: "Surely it would be difficult to deny that genetic effects matter. Just look at how much more biological siblings resemble each other on education and income than do adoptive siblings." So maybe genetics is not the most important ingredient, but saying genetics is not relevant to this discussion is astounding. Smarter parents beget smarter kids -- that's not a controversial statement. IQ is heritable to a large extend. Smarter parents tend to be wealthier. (This is not true everywhere, but it is mostly true in the USA, the land of opportunity.) Smarter kids do better in college. That's not a controversial statement either.
millermp12 11y ago
Look at Plomins studies. Home environment has almost zero correlation.