One question that sometimes nibbles on the minds of those of us who study human forms and behaviors is "How durable, from a generational standpoint, are innate abilities and behaviors?"
The research on the topic has been intriguing although statistically mixed.
For example:
A researcher named Bäumler proposed that a person's surname (last name) might be linked to their physical strength even though surnames solidified between 6 and 26 generations ago. That is, surname usage became common and were handed down generation-to-generation between 1450 and 1850.
Bäumler focused on surnames that were descriptors of professions and self-professed aptitude for sports and later actual track-and-field performance metrics. He divided various sports into "heavy" sports like Rugby and Weight lifting and "light" sports like "Distance Running" and "Darts".
Regression-to-the-mean effects SHOULD have totally obliterated the differences between "Smith", "Wright", "Miller", "Brewer" (professions that selected for physical strength) and "Tailor", "Clark/Clerk" and "Scribner" (sedentary professions) over the +6 generations.
Results
 |
| The last column is the difference between the percentage of participation-rate in "Heavy" sports and "Light" sports. 20,532 data points. |
The results are not a total slam-dunk but it strongly suggests that there is some factor in play that is resisting the regression-to-the-mean effect.
It could be that large, muscular men don't pick tiny, ectomorphic women and that ectomorphic men are less inclined to select endomorphic women.
It could be that men are more likely to select mates who are daughters and sisters of fellow professionals.
Larger implications
It suggests that the great melting-pot model of assimilation will not be as robust as commonly assumed. Stupid people will beget and raise stupid children. Violent, low-impulse-control parents will raise children who are inclined to violence.
The movie "Idiocracy" is a really entertaining mental exercise. Should serve quite well as a starting-off point.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately it was made before some of the more recent errr... demographic changes, so I suspect it will end up being a very optimistic viewpoint of things.
my first thought as well. Stupid people Beget MORE stupid children than intelligent people (women). Further, Poverty and lack of education is a lifestyle.
DeleteLook at appalachian towns or farm towns in the midwest...most who could and were able to, found higher paying jobs in the larger cities. leaving their less educated and less able brothers and sisters and neighbors behind. This begat more poverty which begat even more poverty. and less able people. The winnowing was persistent over time, leaving the least able in these towns. Not stupid, but less able or less motivated and forced to remain in place while the more able and more capable with better choices and more mobility moved on. That is a great portion of why many smaller towns in Kansas and Texas and Indiana and Michigan are dying.
Without industry to prop them up (and automation and offshoring is taking/has taken much of the industry) the towns begin to dies.
Soon all that is left in town are the less able/less motivated, propped up and fed by Federal and State handouts. and they stagnate there, alcohol and drug use and procreation their only entertainment....which leads to more of them and the cycle repeats.
The economic historian Greg Clark has written a lot about this. Here's a Wokeypedia account of one of his books. You have to remember that the type of people who write for and edit Wokeypedia dislike the sort of conclusions that Clark comes to.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Son_Also_Rises_(book)
Very interesting post. Empirical evidence seems to support your conclusions. Unfortunately, due to unfortunate events which occurred 80 - 90 years ago and continue today, open discussion of the topic leads to senseless name calling. Which name calling may or may not provide support to your position.
ReplyDeletesince name calling is the vocal equivalent of pounding the table.
Genetics is only one factor. Environment and choices made are at least as important.
ReplyDeleteOne theory of why Western Europe became such a dominant powerhouse of ideas, technology and progress was because it had laws that selected for those characteristics.
ReplyDeletePeople with low intelligence do not have a well developed sense of time and cannot foresee that actions taken now will result in consequences later. They also have low impulse control and are more likely to resort to violence much sooner than their intelligent peers. If they murder someone due to their low impulse control, then they would have been executed.
Rinse and repeat over the centuries and the low intelligence, low impulse control people do not breed and the gene pool has a low reserve of those traits.
Compare the well developed laws and the rigourous enforcement of those laws with the rest of the world (yes, Africa, I am looking at you) and contrast their contribution to technology, medicine,the sciences etc.
Yes, of course you will get highly intelligent people among the ocean of the rest of the population but the Idiocracy scenario dominates. Low intelligence and low impulse control out breed the intelligent and dominate their countries.
Phil B
If you can find the research of Margret Sanger (founder of planned parenthood) from after ww1, looking into the breeding records of black slave owners. And the traits that carried forward to future generations.
ReplyDeleteIt can also go the other way. The Bedouin people have night vision issues primarily due to consanguineous marriage with a higher prevalence of autosomal-recessive issues. When the gene pool is 'shallow' recessives seem to pop up much more often!
ReplyDeleteDoes this study take into account that males tended to follow their father's career path and inherit business and property when he died? This would select for a successful carpenter son 10 times in 10 generations and work to preserve the things that worked.
ReplyDeleteHow about the fact that daughters have changed their last name upon marrige for many generations?
Seems like the study that goes back 20+ generations follows the sons of sons of sons back alone.