The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJames Thompson Archive
Family Fortunes
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“All happy families are alike” declaimed Tolstoy, so as to then add the equally unsubstantiated coda: “each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way”.

Readers may say: “So true, so very true”, but that would be in the literary sense, in that if it sounds profound it is judged to be so. Like all novelists, Tolstoy was not upon oath. It was enough that his observations be thought profound for them to be valued as such. Empirical support was not required. The truth about families may be different: unhappy families might be made alike by their troubles, while happy families might be free to divert themselves and become unalike in their own disparate individual ways.

Sociologists often regard families as powerhouses of social privilege, able to provide children unmerited advantages in the form of money, experiences, tuition and social connections. In this theory rich families are like powerful artillery guns, shooting their children further forward than the families of equally meritorious poor children, giving them fame, fortune and a headstart in the race for social advancement.

What emerges if we take an empirical approach to family success? Charles Murray (1998) looked at the NLSY79 data set, seeing to what extent intelligence test results explained later earnings levels.

https://analyseeconomique.wordpress.com/2012/11/10/income-inequality-and-iq-by-charles-murray/

The most recent calendar year with income data is 1993. All dollar figures are stated in 1993 dollars. The measure of IQ is the Armed Forces Qualification Test, 1989 scoring version, normalized for each year’s birth cohort to an IQ metric with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 (NLSY subjects were born from 1957 through 1964)
.
Children were put into 5 groups for analytical purposes. In the IQ metric, this means break points at scores of approximately 80, 90, 110, and 120.

The Very Bright start slowly, most probably because they are at college gaining degrees which will help them get higher incomes in the long-term, as shown by the after 1982. Everyone gets age-related salary increases, but the two lowest groups reach a plateau very quickly.

This is the pattern for total family income, which includes welfare payments and spouse’s earnings.

The effect of including welfare payments and spouse’s income (the two most common types of income added to total family income) is to narrow the proportional gaps among cognitive classes while tending to widen the raw dollar gaps. The regularity of the statistical relationship is similar for both measures. The bivariate correlation of IQ to income in this population of adults in their late twenties to mid-thirties was .37 for earned income and .38 for total family income.

Those who take a largely sociological perspective might still want to argue that social forces determine both earnings and intelligence, such that social class is the hidden but fundamental factor. In fact, putting socio-economic status in the regression equation (Beta .10) does not make it more powerful than the effects of IQ (Beta .31).

An extra IQ point is associated with an extra $462 in wages independently of parental SES. However, it is still possible to argue that there are some unmeasured aspects of growing up in that particular family that ensure that family life (social class) is the main driver, and that the socio-economic status measures do not capture those unspecified factors.

Charles Murray took a look at this by using the simple technique of comparing one sibling in a family with another sibling. That is, he compares siblings who had grown up in the same home, with the same parents, but who had different IQs. If families are the engines of privilege that sociologists assume, each sibling will have an equal chance of being propelled forwards into further privilege and higher earnings.

Murray’s method was to pick a sibling in the average range (the “normals” IQs 90-109), and then find the IQ results for another sibling in that same family. By the way, these are biological siblings living with both biological parents. “Families”, they used to be called.

What does this method reveal? If families really are the engines siblings will be pretty much alike in their achievements, intelligence scores (which some aver are no more than measures of social class); in their educational achievements (which some aver are heavily manipulated by the social class of parents), and higher degrees (which some aver are very heavily manipulated by the social class and wealth of parents). All of these translate into the ability to command higher wages.

To start with intelligence, just look at the wide range of intellectual levels to be found in normal families. Yes, most of the siblings are in the normal range of intelligence, but there is evidently considerable regression to the mean. 199 out of 2148 (9.3%) of these much loved, pampered children, despite being read to every evening, and exposed to the uplifting parental level of discourse, are in the very dull range. Another 421 of these children (19.6%) are below average, something which never happens in Lake Wogebon. On the brighter side, 15.2% are brighter, and 6% are very bright.

In summary, the family is not a very efficient engine of social manipulation as regards intelligence. These average children have drifted down somewhat, and on this reading it could be because of measurement error or a genetic regression effect, but they have not all been propelled forwards by social advantage. Try as they might, parents cannot pass on all of their normalcy to all their children. Something has caused these siblings to vary, and it is unlikely to be something which is being manipulated within the family.

Will years of education show a strong family effect?

Not really. The picture is very much like that for intelligence. There are more siblings (475) with below average years of education than with above average years of education (375).

Murray observes:

Same household, same parents, different IQs – and markedly different educational careers. The typical Normal had 1.6 years more education than his Very Dull sibling and 1.9 years less education than his Very Bright sibling. These differences in mean years of education translate into wide differences in the probability of getting a college degree.

Murray looks at the effects of degrees, of occupational privilege and eventually looks at what intelligence differences mean for earned income, the subject of our current interests.

In a very telling passage, Murray reflects on these results:

In 1993, the median earnings for the Normals was $22,000. Their Very Bright siblings already earned a median of $11,500 more, while their Very Dull siblings earned $9,750 less. The Brights and Dulls each fell somewhere in between.

These are large differences. Think of them in terms of a family reunion in 1993, with one sibling belonging to each cognitive class, all sitting around the dinner table, all in their late twenties to mid-thirties, comparing their radically different courses in the world of work. Very few families have five siblings so arranged, of course, but the imaginative exercise serves to emphasize that we are not comparing apples and oranges here – not suburban white children with inner-city black children, not the sons of lawyers with the sons of ditchdiggers – but siblings, children of the same parents, who spent their childhoods under the same roof. They differed in their scores on a paper-and-pencil mental test.

I think this paragraph should be more widely propagated. However, it was written in 1998, and it will still be news to many people.

Finally, Murray turns to Utopia. He wonders:

How much difference would it make if, magically, every child in the country could be given the same environmental advantages as the more fortunate of our children?

As you will know full well, this is the aim of many policy interventions.

Instead of concentrating on differences between siblings, as in the analyses just presented, why not go back to the entire NLSY sample and select that subset of subjects who meet the same condition – growing up with both biological parents from birth through age seven – that we imposed on the sibling sample? And why not carry the process a step further? Having already created a sample without illegitimacy and early divorce, let us slay the greatest of all the social policy betes noires, poverty. To achieve that, I lop off all subjects whose parents were anywhere in the bottom 25 percent of the income distribution as of 1978-1979. This produces a sample of 3,908 NLSY youths who grew up in households which, by 1978-1979, had a median parental income of $50,000 and a minimum income of $25,800 (1993 dollars).

The sample is utopian not just because it has virtually no illegitimacy, divorce, or poverty. The way in which it has been selected has also necessarily effected drastic improvements in the educational system in which the youths grew up (the utopian sample is highly selected for parents living in neighborhoods with good schools). The utopian sample youths had a big edge in their potential access to college, both economically and because the sample is highly selected for the kind of parents who actively encourage their children to continue their educations. The same selection factors mean that we have created a population in which the incidence of good health care, childhood nutrition, and nurturing home environments are all extremely high as compared with the population at large.

How do children from the Utopian sample compare to the actual sample?

The answer is that there is little difference. The Very Dull and the Dull would earn proportionally higher wages, which is a good thing, otherwise everything remains very much the same. Look closer, and those two groups are still doing far less well than their parents. They are on the way down, and depending on social provision where they live, will probably require some financial assistance. After two or three generations many parents in this Utopian society will have some children who require lots of assistance with their living costs, even after having been raised in ideal circumstances.

This will be a particularly acute problem because of assortative mating: less able people tend to have children with similarly less able spouses, who will have similarly low wages. Utopia will have cognitive classes and therefore differences in wealth. Add in the fact that lower ability people tend to start their families earlier in life, and tend to have more children, there will then be households with children who are being raised with far less income per child than in brighter classes. Add in the fact that lower ability people’s wages tend to plateau while higher ability incomes rise, then after 10 to 15 years there will be an increasing disparity in household incomes.

It would appear that giving every family the advantages of the best families cannot fully mitigate the consequences of differences in intelligence, and simply because of the genetic transmission of intelligence, there will be different outcomes for different children of the same families, differences which will be likely to persist and even grow sharper with passing generations.

These studies deserve wider discussion and understanding, but given that they were published in 1998 without in any way denting the regular claims that more welfare will get reduce class differences, it seems unlikely they will ever influence policy debates. Helping those in distress is a noble thing, turning a blind eye to individual differences less so.

What would Tolstoy have said about this debate? That is unclear, because he changed his views in his old age. Perhaps he should have said “All unhappy families are alike, each happy family happy in its own way”.

Tolstoy did however say something highly relevant to policy debates in general.

Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking…

And there we must end it, but should remember poor Sofia Tolstoy, who had a lot to put up with. She helped Leo’s writing career no end, helping him draft his novels and essays. She bore him 13 children, and coped with the early death of 3 of them. And at the end of all that, she had to watch him renounce his book royalties, take up extreme political positions and even, reportedly, take up vegetarianism.

Misery will never end.

 
• Category: Science • Tags: IQ, Iq and Wealth, Wealth inequality 
Hide 101 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. dearieme says:

    One of your most interesting, doc. Thank you.

    • Agree: dc.sunsets, Aft
  2. If you’re going to call the 90th percentile “very bright” you’re not going to get very far.

  3. J says: • Website

    100 US dollar 1993 equals 177 today. The brightest earn 62000 dollar p.a. at age forty? But somehow I have the feeling that the graph does not represent the world I know. Of course, one has very limited perspective, mostly limited to his own class.

    • Replies: @Euripidoze
    , @dc.sunsets
  4. @donald j tingle

    Just reporting what the paper says. Not 1 in 10,000 bright, certainly.

  5. Vinnie O says:

    What happened between 1982 and 1984? Prior to 1982 there really isn’t that much difference between the IQ groups. So the income disparities are a NEW thing.

  6. @Vinnie O

    People got older, and they moved from fairly similar starting salaries to higher salaries, according to their abilities.

  7. @Vinnie O

    That was just about the beginning of Microsoft, micro computers and the digital age, and all that came with it. One hypothesis would be that the new technologies a) gave the super bright more opportunity to make money, and b) made decent jobs for the not-so-bright hard to come by.

  8. @J

    That’s the median, and rings true for me. Mean would be a much different story. But for every hedge fund manager there are dozens of liberal arts college science professors, government accountants, bright nurses and artists, and so on who drag down the median.

  9. @Vinnie O

    In 1981 Reagan was inaugurated as POTUS. “Morning” in America.

    Prior to 1982 the “Normal” group outperformed the other groups.

    In 1983 the Very Bright group matched the Normal group.

    1981 MTV was launched.

    1982 Savings and Loan failures.

    1984 Crack cocaine epidemic.

    1984 Bain Capital formed.

  10. dc.sunsets [AKA "Astonished"] says:
    @J

    Since I fit into the age group shown, I find it fascinating that my personal experience aligned (approximately enough) with the data in Fig 2-1.

    I think the novelist whose work is parallel to the relevance of these data to public (and education) policy is actually Orwell.

    All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

    I might add that unless something changes radically, my kids will be outstripping your inflation-adjusted figure by a very long way when they reach 40. They already do so with nearly a decade to go.

  11. @donald j tingle

    Well, it is classified as “Superior Intelligence” on many scales so I don’t see the problem with that classification. In fact, Oxbridge, Harvard and Ivy League students tend to have IQs at 123-124. Go to Pumpkinpersons blog, he’s got the data (this is not an endorsement/advertisement)

  12. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Bright people with university degrees embarking on a career in the 70’s were expected, as a matter of course, to earn more than those who were less well educated and putatively less bright.

    But times have changed and it now seems questionable whether the difference in income, if there is difference, between those with a degree and those without, makes up for the cost of post-secondary education and the lost years of earning that such education entails.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  13. GMC says:

    IQ is a given but Wisdom takes decades of many different experiences { good and bad } in order to evolve. Why is everything in the US based around Money instead of humanity, good will and things that should make life better – for all ? I’ve lived in many places and met many folks that have more common sence and decent morals than some high IQ opportunists – that have none.

    • Replies: @ricpic
    , @bjondo
    , @CanSpeccy
  14. Murray Bowen Family Systems worth review

  15. LW says:

    In the last 10-20 years, some economists studied either the 1400s or 1600s English records to measure the outcome of a family’s social class standing on their descendants. Interestingly, social class overall is fairly stable. The research found that wealthy families were as a rule still wealthy 5 to 7 centuries later, etc.

    The information provided above that children in the same families that are in higher categories have varying IQs does not factor in that those children with lower IQs from those families who do least well in career earnings might also receive inheritance, stocks, property, ie wealth. They also cannot indicate just because someone has more income that they have a better quality of life because mental health issues, cancer, substance challenges, and social difficulties are present in all families to some degree regardless of income.

    Additionally, as interesting as the charts and research is, to use only one attribute, IQ, and not factor in that every child grows up in a different family—even with the same parents-based on family dynamics, when they are born, how many children there are and what is happening in the family , ie: death, unemployment, fewer or more problems etc and how children are dealt with by their parents-parents who overfunction and do too much for their kids, thereby creating an under functioning child who struggles into adulthood with maturity and life course, and visa versa, parents, who by the way, grew up in their own families where the same dynamics were operating, has a significant impact their life course, including earnings etc.

    Cause and effect thinking does not accurately or fully explain what is indicated in the data. No one thing “causes cancer” is attributed to Murray Bowen. As the above commenter noted, his theory merits review as it uses systems thinking to understand complex human issues.

    Looking at one attribute also does not explain why/how some people who have unusually high IQs, the unibomber for example, or Adam Lanza who was described as very bright, end up where they did in life. The charts also do not tell us about all the people with high, average or low IQs who choose not to participate in the pursuit of a “career” and don’t even show up in the data.

  16. dc.sunsets [AKA "Astonished"] says:
    @CanSpeccy

    But times have changed and it now seems questionable whether the difference in income, if there is difference, between those with a degree and those without, makes up for the cost of post-secondary education and the lost years of earning that such education entails.

    I enjoy watching math-challenged people spend $100-$200k and five years of opportunity cost on a degree that leads to a career making peanuts.

    It seems it’s too much to ask today, for 17-year-olds (and their college- or non-college-educated parents) to do a simply cost-benefit calculation. I guess no one in H.S. ever learns how to use a spreadsheet.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  17. dc.sunsets [AKA "Astonished"] says:
    @LW

    Until the advent of proper sewage handling and drinking water treatment, huge numbers of people died in childhood (and childbirth.) The era you cite includes this period, and there’s ample reason to believe that such harsh conditions were merciless in selecting against low intelligence.

    One of the reasons cited for the Middle Ages being a time of rising intelligence is that the bottom rung of European society during that time simply didn’t leave descendants in numbers, compared to the artisans and craftsmen and aristocrats. Life was pretty tough when you moved the livestock into your one-room, dirt-floored hovel during the winter.

    This study looks, as you note, at one attribute. If you want to look at the time-series’ effect of hereditary schizophrenia (or any of today’s behavioral aberrations and vices that are now on the “approved list”), then by all means conduct it yourself. High intelligence on average is a benefit, but just as a great vertical jump won’t make everyone an NBA star, no single beneficial attribute overcomes every constellation of weaknesses.

    Behavior, like intelligence, is mostly inherited (or else people are somehow completely different from every other animal on Earth.) Now that self- and society-harming behaviors are celebrated and promoted (e.g., political systems run gambling, the variety of intoxicants/drugs available is rising, and sexual hedonism is feted on prime time TV), we should expect that lifetime success overall will go to those who are intelligent enough to curtail their own passions.

    Too bad for those who embrace today’s “tolerance” for their self- and mutual destruction. But we do live in a time when self-nomination for a Darwin Award is quite fashionable.

  18. Factorize says:

    Anyone have research citations for the relationship (correlation) between social groupings and IQ other than co-workers and family (such as friends, neighbors, acquaintances etc.)? Does the 20 point rule typically apply (i.e., beyond a 20 point IQ difference social interaction becomes difficult)?

    • Replies: @Aft
  19. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @dc.sunsets

    I enjoy watching math-challenged people spend $100-$200k and five years of opportunity cost on a degree that leads to a career making peanuts.

    But for most, the decision whether to attend university is not an economic question but a life-style choice. Go to Uni and you will be properly brainwashed. In particular, if you are white, you will learn to despise your own race and hope for its early extinction, while applauding the takeover of your country by people of alien race, religion and culture. At the same time, you will learn to care about the extinction of other white creatures such as the polar bear, and how to deploy hate speech against those who wear the MAGA hat. Most importantly, you will never again be mistaken for a deplorable, and you will be properly socialized for employment by corporate America, whether headed for the executive suite at Google, FaceBook, JP Morgan, the faculty at Harvard, or a minimum wage job with Amazon or Walmart.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  20. Someone in the UNZ Report is OBSESS with IQ data, numbers, analysis,,,,BUT IQ tests SHOULD be AIDS for Educational, Health, Economic, Employment POLICIES otherwise IQ studies are just a useless sports trivia..

  21. @LW

    Yes, Greg Clark shows that family surnames persist at particular class levels for many generations, and this suggests a continuity of ability. Gregt’s work does show a partial effect of inherited wealth.

    “Everyone grows up in a different family even with the same parents”. This is an interesting hypothesis. I wonder how you would test it.

    “Using only one attribute”. Many attributes can be measured, and then tested for their predictive value. Until one can show they are predictive, they remain possible factors, but not certain factors. They are worth testing, and the field is open for further tests on measures of family dynamics, and so on.

    Cause and effect thinking is what interests me most.

    “Looking at one attribute ….(does not explain outliers)”. Strong correlations are not perfect, and so there will always be outliers. A correlation of 0.5 will have many exceptions. The strength of the correlation can best be understood by measuring the correlations of other putative causes of income and wealth, including things like lack of in wealth. So, have a look at other predictors, like say family dynamics, and see how well they predict.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  22. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @James Thompson

    Greg Clark shows that family surnames persist at particular class levels for many generations, and this suggests a continuity of ability.

    How so. Remember, during the pre-industrial period to which this discussion refers, the vast majority of wealth consisted in land which was, under the rule of primogeniture, passed on without division to the oldest son.

    That being the case, one would expect that:

    (a) wealth would remain in the same families for many generations, indeed why not forever, irrespective of the intelligence of the inheritors; and

    (b) that consequent upon the phenomenon of reversion to the mean, the intelligence of the inheritors would have varied around the population mean.

    However, among the hoi polloi, i.e., mostly agricultural laborers, intelligence under the difficult circumstances of landless life would have been at a premium. Thus one might expect that on the conditions of increased freedom and opportunity that resulted with the dawning of the modern age, there would have been witnessed the emergence of a wealth of talent from the lowest classes in society, which in fact, has been the case.

    Consider, Mary McCleod, a tenth child raised in a filthy croft home on the Hebridean Island of Lewis, who migrated to America, married a Bronx house builder and raised the current President of the United States.

    Or consider … well consider a thousand other rags to riches stories one can easily find on the Web or, considering the case of one’s own ancestry: many here who consider themselves intelligent and well-off will surely acknowledge humble origins.

  23. ricpic says:

    Wow, we need science to tell us siblings vary in intelligence?

  24. @Vinnie O

    Thus disproving this spin on these nonsense graphs.

  25. ricpic says:
    @GMC

    Actually, wisdom cannot evolve in a secular society. Sounds stupid? Probably. But think about it, what words of wisdom have you ever heard uttered or broadcast by the secularists who surround you and of course become the anointed ones in a secular society such as ours? The answer is none. Bright? Oh yes, they’re bright as all getout. They’re clever, smart, quick. But wise? They are not.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  26. dearieme says:

    Here’s a chap who thinks that stamina is a key to economic success. It’s not clear to me whether he thinks stamina is the same thing as energy.

    Anyway, has anyone published anything worthwhile on the proposition? Come to that, has anyone measured the heritability of stamina/energy?

    http://www.overcomingbias.com/2019/09/stamina-succeeds.html

    • Replies: @grey enlightenment2
    , @Aft
  27. bjondo says:
    @GMC

    Why?

    The high IQ perverts have taken over.

  28. dearieme says:
    @CanSpeccy

    during the pre-industrial period to which this discussion refers, the vast majority of wealth consisted in land which was, under the rule of primogeniture, passed on without division to the oldest son

    That position was ended in 1540 under Henry VIII. Until then primogeniture of land could be avoided but it required manoeuvres with trusts. After that you could leave land to whomever you liked simply by your Last Will and Testament.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  29. dc.sunsets [AKA "Astonished"] says:
    @ricpic

    I note a small resurgence in interest in Stoic philosophy (at least as measured by the number of newly published books on the subject.) Stoicism is pre-Christian (and to some degree lasted well into the Christian Era.)

    Given the thesis of Stoicism, it looks like quite a benefit in these times of excess “passion.” Whether this is relevant to your derision toward secular wisdom (philosophy does look secular to me) is perhaps in the eye of the beholder.

    As to those who obtain celebrity (or notoriety) for their “wisdom,” I think you’re confusing terms. Most people want to be told what they want to hear, and for most people that means they desire ready rationalizations for the vices in which they indulge.

    If you’ve not previously encountered it, you might enjoy Albert J. Nock’s Isaiah’s Job, first published in The Atlantic in 1936. It’s widely available on the Internet. Tl;dr version…what’s popular will never be wisdom, the Book of Isaiah settles that pretty certainly (as does common sense.)

    My current book-in-process is How To Think Like A Roman Emperor, the Stoic Philosophy of Marcus Aurelius. It does exactly what I describe above, confirm my preexisting set of theories. (Wink)

  30. dc.sunsets [AKA "Astonished"] says:
    @CanSpeccy

    But for most, the decision whether to attend university is not an economic question but a life-style choice. Go to Uni and you will be properly brainwashed.

    Not just the students. I once was a fly-on-the-wall for a conversation between a nurse (RN) and a pharmaceutical rep (at least a BA) about their daughters’ experiences at University.

    They were both very happy that their daughters were getting the full college experience (and no, I’m not reading into that any more than was plainly evident. They were happy their daughters were giving away for free that for which prostitutes charge.)

    Almost two decades ago at a university orientation for parents (while the prospective students received theirs separately) we were told of our sons and daughters…when they become sexually active, not if, when….

    University students are nothing but conduits through which the people employed by the U. reach the loot offered by lenders (including Uncle Sam.) University employees monetize a big chunk of the future earnings of graduates this way (given the astonishingly inflated costs now.)

    Keeping warm conduits enrolled is The Big Game. Universities of course offer 4-star lodging, ever-better food service and top-of-the-line workout facilities, not to mention all the other recreation, but they need the girls to service the boys (or at least to make the boys think they’ll get serviced.)

    The Japanese Military had a term for these women during WWII: Comfort Women. Roman Legionaries called them Camp Followers.

    Coeds are basically unpaid hookers in a brothel, and the few alpha males get all the “companionship” they want. It was that way 40 years ago, and it just got worse in all the intervening time. But then again, when people have raised vice to a religious sacrament, it’s hardly a surprise that every superficially pleasurable activity is shorn of context and people turned loose to behave in self-destructive patterns that create ever-widening circles of inescapable chaos.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Alden
    , @Alden
    , @Corvinus
  31. Can someone fill me in on the main factors that would give separated identical twins different IQs?
    A cursory google suggests a middle class environment with two married parents, and extended schooling help raise the IQ:
    https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/09/20/identical-twins-with-a-huge-iq-gap/

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Factorize
    , @Aft
  32. @dearieme

    it succeeds if you are already very smart. stamina alone does not help much

  33. >Here’s a chap who thinks that stamina is a key to economic success. It’s not clear to me whether he thinks stamina is the same thing as energy.

    It helps if you are already smart. Grit and stamina allows one to live to their cognitive potential but not exceed it.

  34. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @dearieme

    That position was ended in 1540 under Henry VIII.

    Not exactly. Primogeniture is the right by law or custom of the firstborn legitimate son to inherit his parent’s entire or main estate. Thus Hugh Grosvenor, for example, in 2016, inherited both the title and the ten-billion-pound estate of his father the Duke of Westminster, despite having two older sisters. The same tradition is widely followed among the lesser landowners and farmers —provided they have a son, which has become increasingly unlikely since the Brits, like all the Europeans decided to replace themselves with people from elsewhere, rather than go to all the bother of raising their own posterity.

    • Replies: @Alden
    , @dearieme
  35. CanSpeccy says:
    @TelfoedJohn

    Can someone fill me in on the main factors that would give separated identical twins different IQs?

    Phenotype is the product of genotype and environment. Thus every difference in environment, cultural, social, physical will affect phenotype as that is expressed in mental function.

  36. CanSpeccy says:
    @GMC

    Why is everything in the US based around Money instead of humanity, good will and things that should make life better – for all ? I’ve lived in many places and met many folks that have more common sense and decent morals than some high IQ opportunists – that have none.

    I think you just answered your own question.

    The scum rises. Those who have risen to prominence by means that do not bear examination, naturally justify their material success without reference to the Christian morality that underlay the rise of Western civilization. Instead, they make a virtue of their ingenuity in skirting traditional morality. Thus high IQ deployed in getting money is presented as the social equivalent of virtue.

    That is not to say, of course, that all people who are rich or clever, or both rich and clever are necessarily scoundrels. But the idea that those with high IQ’s are somehow born to rule, promotes the ideology of everything being permitted provided it makes one rich, since the accumulation of wealth is regarded, justifiably or not, as a measure of intelligence.

    • Replies: @Alden
  37. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @dc.sunsets

    Coeds are basically unpaid hookers in a brothel…

    According to that ancient document, The Kinsey Report (1948), Americans have always been quite promiscuous.

    The problem I see with the prolongation of education practically for ever is that young people don’t settle down with a job and a home of their own while the girls are most able to produce children. The result is a European population bust to which the European Treason Party governments have responded by promoting mass immigration of people of alien race, religion and culture.

    And to make this policy of self-genocide by mass replacement immigration worse, Western governments are now opting for the Australian/Canadian model of a “points-based” immigration system to ensure that immigrants are, in general, better qualified than the natives and thus able more easily to relieve the native-born of decent job opportunities and housing options.

    Instead, what we need are measures to promote the fertility of the most able members of our native-born populations. These should include strict enforcement of paternity payments by partners of welfare mothers (enforced by a combination of DNA testing and if necessary witholding of welfare to mothers who fail to identify their sexual partners, and imprisonment of non-paying fathers), and large tax breaks for employed people, such benefits to yield the greatest support to the smartest, i.e., highest earning, families, and provide increased economic security to mothers in an age of no-fault divorce (i.e., tax benefits should be paid in cash to mothers for life, based on the income of both parents, whether they are married or living together or not).

  38. Ryan says:

    The road goes on forever and the party never ends.

  39. Factorize says:
    @TelfoedJohn

    Hope these citations might help. There seems to be a surprisingly large effect from prGE and genetic nurture (Note that these might not directly apply to your question).

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29371463
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31303263

  40. Alden says:
    @CanSpeccy

    All of Mary Mcleod’s Wealth came from her Bronx builder husband. Marrying money is very different from making it.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  41. Alden says:
    @dc.sunsets

    4 star lodging? Have you ever been in one of the new dorms, especially the rooms? 2 or 3 kids in a 9 by 12 room with no closets just 2 or 3 cupboards using up floor space. Only if you love Stalinesque brutalist architecture furniture and decor can you consider college dorms 4 star lodging.

    You’re absolutely right that the uni students are just the pipe through which the uni employees suck up government money.

  42. Alden says:
    @dc.sunsets

    So you sent your daughters off to live in a brothel as an unpaid prostitute for 4 years?

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  43. Alden says:
    @CanSpeccy

    The Westminster wealth came from the dowry of an ancestress. She was a farmers daughter not son. A 240 acre farm was turned into the most profitable section of London. And it’s stayed profitable for centuries.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  44. Alden says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Another old French saying

    Society is like stew. The scum rises to the top. The dregs fall to the bottom. And in between the nutritious meat and vegetables.

  45. @CanSpeccy

    We will have to see what comes out in Greg’s eventual publication, but I think there will be an inheritance effect. However, there are many reasons why wealth need not remain in families for ever, of which the largest reasons is that many inheritors spend the lot of it. In Germany they say: First generation starts the business, second generation makes it flourish, third generation falters, fourth generation: Art History.

    • Replies: @dearieme
    , @CanSpeccy
  46. Factorize says:

    This figure provides insight into how social structures are maintained through time irrespective of ability level. Prominently one can observe a large inertia at the highest and lowest SES which are not supported by the PGSs. One might expect that genetic testing will now allow those with high PGS from any social background to be given the opportunity to develop their talents. This would be the socially and economically efficient strategy. Otherwise, the psychometrically hollow social structure depicted in the figure will continue.

  47. dearieme says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Your reply seems to me to be evasive, presumably because you were caught out in an error.

    You said land which was, under the rule of primogeniture, passed on without division to the oldest son.

    I pointed out that there was no such rule after 1540 (and that it could be defeated even before then). You changed your point by implying that you really meant a custom rather than a rule.

    The you introduced a new error by saying Hugh Grosvenor, for example, in 2016, inherited both the title and the ten-billion-pound estate of his father the Duke of Westminster

    You are right about the title – almost all titles of nobility pass by male primogeniture. But you are wrong (so I understand) about the wealth. He didn’t inherit the estate – if the newspapers are right the estate belongs to a Trust not to young Westminster.

    No doubt his father also had a personal estate: how he disposed of that I have no idea.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  48. dearieme says:
    @James Thompson

    I think “clogs to clogs in three generations” is terser. Mind you, being terser than a German isn’t much of a challenge.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  49. dc.sunsets [AKA "Astonished"] says:
    @Alden

    So you sent your daughters off to live in a brothel as an unpaid prostitute for 4 years?

    1. What gives you the notion that I have daughters?
    2. Everything we do (or experience) becomes a part of us. I raised my sons to grasp that.
    3. To me, it’s self-evident that as the variety of sexual experience with different people rises, overall satisfaction with life (and sex) diminishes. Whether you grasp that or not is irrelevant to me, so I don’t engage in discussion of it.
    4. Sex (physical intimacy) has two biological purposes: (1) reproduction and (2) deepening the emotion bond between a man and a woman so that the father of the woman’s children hangs around and provisions (and defends) the family, a condition more important in harsh climates than in equatorial areas, hence why different peoples have different levels of familial attachment.

    Casual sex breaks the bond between physical and emotional intimacy, and from a lifetime of observation I conclude that once broken, it does not get repaired. This is among the reasons so many people are miserable and depressed. If for no other reason, a sexually-attractive young person (man or woman) who samples a lot of the flowers in the garden is like someone who gets a year to live like a billionaire, who is then cast back into a normal life; they’ll spend the rest of their lives not enjoying the memories but destroyed by the loss of those continued experiences.

    It’s not a peculiarity of Christian doctrine to eschew adultery (which is not just spouses cheating, but is all sex outside marriage.) The Ancients knew that hedonism only brings unhappiness. Now that every vice is catered to, all we see are people forever addicted to chasing the “better high,” no matter if their “drug” of choice is cocaine or the endorphins released by sexual pleasure.

    We live in a world of miserable people chasing a better [—–] like greyhounds at the track chase the magic bunny.

    When your society’s sanity goes off the rails it pays to stop doing what the crowd deems great.

  50. dc.sunsets [AKA "Astonished"] says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Instead, what we need are

    Utopian.

    Human collective experience is cyclical, and there’s no way on Earth to change it because it emanates from human nature, including laws of genetics.

    I have a high-IQ, low time-preference, thoughtful and kind family…the kind of people you’d like to live near. I had an “above replacement” number of kids. My kids are on their way to having “above replacement” numbers of kids. So far, my grandkids belie the random distribution model of parent-child IQ, just as did my sons.

    It is not a brag, it’s reality: My IQ is inferred to be above 140. My sons’ IQ’s (while not measured directly) appear to be at least that high. You don’t get straight “A’s” all the way through an engineering degree without being at least 1 in 1000, for example, and all of them are leaping higher in demanding technical fields in large corporations, in one case being mentored for E-suite level activity…without any of Sailer’s Diversity Pokemon Points. So far, their kids are bright and precocious.

    We are all the incentive we need to “make more bright, useful, capable people.” I can’t fix the world (and have no desire to try, for it’s a Sisyphean task doomed from the outset, as noted by Nock’s Isaiah’s Job.) How my long-term descendants do, assuming I will have them, is their adventure to tackle. Recall that Marcus Aurelius, largely deemed a “good” emperor of the Western Roman Empire, couldn’t even fix his own son. Even the best, with the best of intentions and essentially unlimited resources (which might be the source of the trouble) couldn’t raise his son to succeed.

    Each of us always sails alone, in that sense. This life is truly an adventure, and I for one am grateful for it.

    • Replies: @Factorize
    , @Corvinus
  51. Factorize says:
    @dc.sunsets

    Astonished, the genetics of human cognitive is currently unlocking. Given the phase transition boundary involved and the current scale of GWAS, a complete unlock is approaching: all 1500 points. A world of universal genius is approaching and with it extreme levels of accomplishment. The egalitarian world that was proclaimed as a hope for the future in the American Constitution will be realized.

    Will you resent the loss of your family’s relative social status or will you rejoice in the accompanying massive increase in level of wealth and technological progress? Is being smart (i.e., absolute smartness)
    important to you or do you need to be smarter (i.e., relatively smart)?

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  52. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Alden

    All of Mary Mcleod’s Wealth came from her Bronx builder husband. Marrying money is very different from making it.

    And half the genes of Mary Mcleod’s son, the President of the United States, the most powerful man in the world, a man whose father was an unknown Bronx house-builder, came from Mary Mcleod. Marrying good genes is very different from inheriting them.

  53. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @James Thompson

    However, there are many reasons why wealth need not remain in families for ever, of which the largest reasons is that many inheritors spend the lot of it. In Germany they say: First generation starts the business, second generation makes it flourish, third generation falters, fourth generation: Art History.

    That is now, the period Greg Clark was speaking of was then, which is to say when wealth was primarily in the form of land and the opportunities for squandering an inheritance were, with the exception of the Crusades, less readily available than in today’s world of stock markets, legalized gambling, mega yachts and personalized aircraft.

    In any case, even today, the majority of Britain’s great landowners are the descendants of the aristocracy created following the Norman conquest. So no, great landed estates were not the product of business enterprise and, moreover, they generate sufficient rental income that the inheritors are free t0 pursue Art History to their heart’s content without jeopardizing the inheritance of their oldest son.

  54. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @dearieme

    You changed your point by implying that you really meant a custom rather than a rule.

    Bollocks. I implied nothing. I merely cited the definition of the word you still do not understand. Primogeniture is “the rule or custom …”.

    As for the Hugh Grosvenor, Wikipedia states that his wealth, mostly in real estate much of it in the possession of his family since the 17th Century, amounts to 10.1 billion pounds, almost exactly the same as his late father, and making him, according to Wikipedia, the richest man in the World under 30.

    As for the family trust, it is a device to avoid ruinous death duties and other forms of tax.

    • Replies: @dearieme
  55. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Alden

    Yes, the Westminsters are nouveau-riche, unlike my own remote ancestors who were enobled in the immediate aftermath of the Norman conquest. Unfortunately, I am not a direct descendant of the oldest son of the oldest son for 30 generations or so of the land-owning branch of the family.

  56. @dearieme

    Ho ho ho. Mind you, Germans have probably made more “middle size” businesses, so have more actual data to go on. And on.

  57. dearieme says:
    @CanSpeccy

    If the money is in trust then it means he isn’t the richest young man in the world because the money isn’t his. If the money isn’t in trust and is in his personal possession then the Grosvenors must be a singularly stupid and ill-advised family. I’ll bet they’re not.

    WKPD is talking tripe.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  58. Corvinus says:
    @dc.sunsets

    Astonished, you are a sock puppet. You also comment on this blog as “dc.sunsets”. What gave you away? Your trope of “hav[ing] a high-IQ, low time-preference, thoughtful and kind family…my IQ is inferred to be above 140, with [m]y sons’ IQ’s (while not measured directly) appear to be at least that high.”

    Stick to one or the other in the future.

  59. Corvinus says:
    @dc.sunsets

    “University students are nothing but conduits through which the people employed by the U. reach the loot offered by lenders (including Uncle Sam.) University employees monetize a big chunk of the future earnings of graduates this way (given the astonishingly inflated costs now.)”

    Your confirmation bias is interfering with your ability to be rational on this subject.

  60. Corvinus says:
    @CanSpeccy

    “The problem I see with the prolongation of education practically for ever is that young people don’t settle down with a job and a home of their own while the girls are most able to produce children. ”

    Which, ultimately, is their liberty. What you are proposing is to squelch individual freedom.

    “The result is a European population bust to which the European Treason Party governments have responded by promoting mass immigration of people of alien race, religion and culture.”

    Consider that world history is based on this cycle:

    Newcomers arrive
    Newcomers are unwelcome
    Newcomers assimilate
    New newcomers arrive
    Old newcomers are unwelcome toward new newcomers
    Ad infinitum

    Your ancestors were deemed to be of an “alien race, religion, and culture”. They, and you, along with myself, are not “exempt”.

    “And to make this policy of self-genocide by mass replacement immigration worse…”

    There is no “self-genocide” taking place. It is a myth. White people are not endangered of being “exterminated”.

    “Instead, what we need are measures to promote the fertility of the most able members of our native-born populations.”

    Would not these “most able members” include non-whites? Furthermore, what about those deemed “mentally challenged”? Should they be cast aside given their low IQ?

    “These should include strict enforcement of paternity payments by partners of welfare mothers (enforced by a combination of DNA testing and if necessary witholding of welfare to mothers who fail to identify their sexual partners, and imprisonment of non-paying fathers)…”

    Your plan is pie in the sky. It’s SJWism on steroids. Have you even thought about the political and constitutional pitfalls here?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  61. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @dearieme

    If the money is in trust then it means he isn’t the richest young man in the world

    If I were the beneficiary of a ten billion pound trust, at least I wouldn’t need a nine till five job in order to feed the family.

    • Replies: @dearieme
  62. Corvinus says:
    @CanSpeccy

    “and large tax breaks for employed people, such benefits to yield the greatest support to the smartest, i.e., highest earning, families, and provide increased economic security to mothers in an age of no-fault divorce (i.e., tax benefits should be paid in cash to mothers for life, based on the income of both parents, whether they are married or living together or not).”

    So you are promoting socialism. I thought that is a big no-no around these parts. Although, let us go down your rabbit hole…

    The libertarian “benefit” that enables a person the freedom to live their own life of their own volition is ONLY reserved to males. Of course, one could request to men, rather foolishly I might add, if they favor placing severe limitations on what they should be allowed to do in society, and if they would to be denied by “civilized savages” from the liberty to pursue their own schooling or career decisions. In a nutshell, freedom of association is only under the domain of the superior gender…MEN. Females need not apply, with their citizenship rights ought to be stripped to the barest of minimums.

    Furthermore, even if young men and women are ill-prepared intellectually or financially to care for them (freedom be damned!), and despite the wolf of Cultural Marxism that breathes down the neck of innocent Robby or Libby, every single member of the Christian libertarian intelligentsia or Greek Orthodox Brigade is obligated to hit the lecture circuit and step onto the soapbox, with bullhorn in tow, to proudly advertise to the Roissy’s and feminazi’s of the world that their outright refusal to settle down and raise (white) children is a recipe for demographic homicide.

    We are mindful that the Roman emperor Augustus made adultery a public crime and established financial penalties for citizens who outright refused to marry and bear a certain number of children.

    On to “inducing” women to birth and raise children. YES! We must put forth the following proposal in those areas which suffer from low birth rates–the passage of a law at most, or substantial social pressure at the bare minimum, for white men to marry and have their concubine, I mean wife, bear five children in eight years. For those coloreds, who contribute absolutely nothing to civilization sans pestilence and chaos, enacting legislation is most desirable, or at least through brute force, to ensure they have one child. Women in their prime ought to be compelled to forgo their own life in order to produce offspring.

    Follow the Russian model! “Free stuff” in the form of housing and education, direct cash payments to women who pop out more chilluns (and even adjusting their work schedules to meet maternal demands!), and programs to dry out the Vodka swilling man-childs running amok. It is worth pointing out that a society in which individuals are encouraged to have children by governmental intrusion is not a free society, unless you are a closet librul who advocates these forms of welfare and social engineering!

    Along the way, white young boys entering middle school age will endure a battery of tests to determine their level of leadership, competition, and stamina. In a “Fight Club” exercise, platoons will be created based on their test scores, who will strap on red or blue arm bands and hunt down the “enemy” to rip off their emblems. Outright brawls demonstrate a sign of strength; younger, weaker boys will summarily get pummeled and bloodied to a pulp. Ripped shirts, scraped knees, and broken noses are considered badges of honor. White boys who failed to measure up will be barred from reproducing; those who “manned up” will procure a young lass and have multiple rug rats.

    After all, in the immortal words of Oliver Wendell Holmes, “[one] generation[s] of imbeciles are enough”.

    We ALL have a moral duty to hit the road as traveling salesmen to pitch the idea to the unwashed masses how their utter stupidity will undeniably result in catastrophic demographic turmoil unless they “properly” live their life.

  63. Factorize says:

    University students are also conduits of the transfer of g up the SES hierarchy. One might reasonably consider how life will change as our universities continue the recent trend of virtualizing. Will we return to pre-industrial patterns of g distribution?

  64. Factorize says:

    Socialists are so immoral. After a woman has foregone income for ten years as she pursues an education along with all the expenses, and has an investment with accumulated present value of possibly $1 million or more, it is time to tax her. She is rich now, her capital investment can simply be nationalized by the state. True socialists never honor bourgeoisie hard work. Instead they invariably will find those who never bothered with such exertions and transfer her wealth to them. Until the community understands this logic, socialists will continue to defraud people and ultimately contribute to ongoing dysgenic fertility.

  65. dearieme says:
    @CanSpeccy

    There’s little chance that he is “the beneficiary” of the trust because then it would be taxed as his. He is presumably a beneficiary of the trust.

  66. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Corvinus

    The trouble with you Corvy is that you are unable to make a point with a solid argument to justify it. Instead you rant, making a dozen mostly nonsensical points without attempt at rational justification or the offer of factual evidence, plus a bunch of silly ad hominens. Why would anyone debate with such a blatherskite? Not I, certainly.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  67. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    He is presumably a beneficiary of the trust.

    Whatever.

    Here’s what Bloomberg Billionaires Profiles of the World’s 500 Richest, reports:

    Grosvenor, the seventh Duke of Westminster, controls Grosvenor Group, a British real estate company. The London-based business owns 300 acres in the Belgravia and Mayfair neighborhoods, and controlled assets valued at 12.3 billion pounds ($15.6 billion) on Dec. 31, 2018. He inherited land his family has owned since 1677.

    As of September 13, 2019 :
    Last change No change
    YTD change -$625M ( -5.0%)
    Industry Real Estate
    Biggest asset Grosvenor Group

    • Replies: @dearieme
  68. Corvinus says:
    @CanSpeccy

    “The trouble with you Corvy is that you are unable to make a point with a solid argument to justify it.”

    Actually, I am quite skilled at offering a position and backing it up with evidence. I don’t expect you to acknowledge that fact.

    “Instead you rant, making a dozen mostly nonsensical points without attempt at rational justification or the offer of factual evidence, plus a bunch of silly ad hominens.

    Actually, I engaged in rhetoric as a counter to your rhetoric. Then, I provided satirical commentary to your socialist proposal.

    “Why would anyone debate with such a blatherskite? Not I, certainly.”

    Code for “you have legitimate ideas that I would have to seriously contemplate and offer a rebuttal to, but I choose not to”.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  69. dearieme says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Grosvenor, the seventh Duke of Westminster, controls …

    Now why does Bloomberg say “controls” rather than “owns”?

    And why can’t Bloomberg decide whether the land is owned by Westmister himself (He inherited land …) or by the Grosvenor group (The London-based business owns 300 acres …)?

    You should apply to Bloomberg for a job: their standards of accuracy are obviously compatible with yours.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  70. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Corvinus

    Actually, I am quite skilled at offering a position and backing it up with evidence. I don’t expect you to acknowledge that fact.

    That’s your opinion, but your opinion of your own rhetorical skills are not exactly what this thread is about.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  71. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @dearieme

    Now why does Bloomberg say “controls” rather than “owns”?

    You wouldn’t, I suspect, be a great success in the world of finance.

    Ownership is best avoided in a country with a 40% inheritance tax.

    Had the Duke of Westminster inherited his father’s wealth directly, rather than being the beneficiary of that estate in trust, he would now have control not of around ten billion pounds but of only about six billion pounds, and were he to die now, his heir would have control 40% less again.

    So among those who understand money, control is what matters and is deemed largely equivalent to ownership. It means the freedom to spend at will — the whole ten billion or however much it may be if the person who controls is so inclined.

    These considerations pretty certainly apply to the wealth of most of the world’s celebrated billionaires, at least those domiciled in civilized countries where wealth is subject to taxation and tax laws are enforced.

    So either the Duke of Westminster is worth ten billion, or most of the billionaires the public are familiar with are not, by your standard, billionaires at all, their wealth being in some fashion or other held at arms length to minimize tax liability.

  72. dearieme says:

    If he were THE beneficiary then the trust wealth would be treated as his own. Therefore he must be A beneficiary. You seem unable to grasp this elementary point.

    As for the ten billion, baloney. Bloomberg is talking out of its fundament. Just click through to Companies House and you’ll see that Grosvenor Group Limited reports its assets as five billion pounds.

    In short, almost everything you’ve said in this conversation has been lame-brained.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  73. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @dearieme

    As for the ten billion, baloney. Bloomberg is talking out of its fundament.

    As, then, must be the Guardian and the Sunday Times as quoted by the Guardian in a report, based on the Panama Papers, setting forth how the Grosvenors shielded their almost ten-billion-pound fortune from taxes by means of:

    five UK trusts that have been used, for generations, to keep in the hands of a single family an estate that includes much of Belgravia and Mayfair in London, 165,000 acres of British countryside, hundreds of developments in North America, Australia and Hong Kong, and an island in Vancouver.

    The trusts established by successive dukes to control Grosvenor are UK resident and subject to British tax – they pay a 6% charge on the value of many of their assets every 10 years. Assets worth £600m belonging directly to the 6th Duke, which were not held in trust, were inherited by his wife exempt from tax, as is normal for married couples. Death duties will be payable in the UK when her children inherit.

    But no doubt you find all that lame-brained too, like any evidence that contradicts your idée fixé about the meaning of the term primogeniture and its application to the inheritance of many great landed estates to this day.

    • Replies: @dearieme
  74. dearieme says:
    @CanSpeccy

    God, more bloody evasion. You cited in your support”

    the seventh Duke of Westminster, controls Grosvenor Group, a British real estate company. The London-based business owns 300 acres in the Belgravia and Mayfair neighborhoods, and controlled assets valued at 12.3 billion pounds ($15.6 billion) on Dec. 31, 2018

    But that’s simply wrong. Look at their financial statement: it’s £5billion of assets.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  75. Corvinus says:
    @CanSpeccy

    “That’s your opinion, but your opinion of your own rhetorical skills are not exactly what this thread is about.”

    Why don’t you substantially respond to the questions I posed rather than seemingly duck and dodge?

    Is not “large tax breaks for employed people, such benefits to yield the greatest support to the smartest (to facilitate white family formation)” socialism? How do you propose ensuring your proposal becomes national policy? What are the potential, negative political, economic, and social side effects of said national policy?

    How do you define the “most able members of our native-born populations”? Would they also include “non-whites”? Furthermore, what about those deemed “mentally challenged”? Should they be cast aside given their low IQ?

    Time to put up or shut up…

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  76. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Corvinus

    Is not “large tax breaks for employed people, such benefits to yield the greatest support to the smartest (to facilitate white family formation)” socialism?

    A tax break constitutes a relief of taxation.

    It means taking less of what people earn for themselves in order to pay the common expenses, which, in today’s welfare state, means the transfer of wealth from those who have to those who haven’t, which is precisely the definition of socialism. So what I propose is anti-socialist, although it does not mean that I am opposed to all taxation or all welfare.

    So far as it affects fertility rates, taxation in the Western nations reduces the reproductive potential of those who have more to pay for the reproduction of those who have less or nothing at all.

    So no, a tax break is not socialism. It is what you seem advocate for that is socialism.

    How do you propose ensuring your proposal becomes national policy? What are the potential, negative political, economic, and social side effects of said national policy?

    Look, I’m not running a political campaign, or launching a political party. I’m just discussing some features of the political landscape and how those would have to be changed if we wanted to end up some place other than where we are now. But no change in political direction can occur unless there is motivation for change, and motivation for change can only occur if people understand the underlying social mechanics and how those might be redesigned to achieve different outcomes.

    How do you define the “most able members of our native-born populations”?

    Depends what one means by “able.” But tax bracket is one way to defines “able” in the sense of the ability to care for oneself and ones own in today’s environment, and perhaps that is the best one can do as a proxy for Darwinian fitness.

    Would they (the most able) also include “non-whites”?

    Obviously, yes, on the working definition of “able” that I have used here, and provided that they are native-born — take a look at the rich list for the Western nations and see how many of the richest are non-white.

    Furthermore, what about those deemed “mentally challenged”? Should they be cast aside given their low IQ?

    One of the fundamental concepts of Christian civilization that globalist, anti-nationalist, multiculturalists seek to deny, is that we are all children of God, which surely provides all the guidance one needs concerning the treatment of the mentally deficient or impaired.

    But though the mentally defective may be children of God, that does not make them “able” in the sense of being able to successfully raise a family, and I see absolutely no reason to undermine the fertility of those who are able in that sense, in order to facilitate the breeding of those who are not in that sense able. In fact, such a policy, which is in effect throughout the West is just one of many lunatic self-genocidal policies that mean the imminent disintegration and destruction of the Western nations.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  77. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @dearieme

    But that’s simply wrong.

    Why don’t you write the Guardian pointing out their error, with copies to the Sunday Times, Bloomberg, Wikipedia, etc., etc.

    God, more bloody evasion. You cited in your support …”

    As for evasion, let’s get back to your original misconception and stop evading the fact that:

    Primogeniture is the right by law or custom of the firstborn legitimate son to inherit his parent’s entire or main estate

    Or do you take the Humpty Dumpty line:

    words mean whatever I want them to mean, neither more nor less.

  78. Aft says:
    @dearieme

    IQ first, conscientiousness second, and then some measure of drive and energy is probably the best simple model. There is some evidence the last involves a fair amount more chance than the first two, which are highly heritable.

    Heritability of IQ: ~80%
    Heritability of conscientiousness: 70-80% when measured using both self and peer ratings
    Heritability of lifetime income: ~50% (the rest is almost entirely unshared environment; shared environment is usually found to be 0-10%)

    Where does the extra randomness in earnings (between identical twins) come from?

    One explanation would be “luck”–but as much sense as this makes for billionaires perhaps, this likely contributes much less to datasets focused on the lifetime income of the entire population and involving log of income.

    The best I’ve been able to come up with–the papers don’t really address it–would be time course of various infections and viruses and total immune burden. See, e. g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3935478/?report=reader#!po=0.925926

    The result would be that given equal cognitive endowments, the identical twin with fewer lifetime infections and especially later or absent or minimally active HSV, CMV, and other viral load would earn more. But someone should really test that theory of infectious load and lifetime earnings (my guess would be people familiar with the work of Gregory Cochran or Anatoly Karlin find this very plausible).

  79. Aft says:
    @Factorize

    The original source of this idea:

    To be a leader of his contemporaries, a child must be more intelligent, but not too much more intelligent, than those who are to be led. There are rare exceptions to this principle, as in the case we have cited. But, generally speaking, a leadership pattern will not form—or it will break up—when a discrepancy of more than about 30 points of IQ comes to exist between the leader and the led.

    Leta Hollingsworth, 1924

    Social interaction beyond 2 SD is certainly doable, but it’s just abundantly clear the people involved think of things at vastly different levels of gradation and complexity.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @res
    , @Factorize
  80. Aft says:
    @TelfoedJohn

    Arthur Jensen:

    Additional evidence from comparison of the difference between MZ twins reared together with the difference betwen MZ twins reared apart suggests that most of the small twin difference in IQ may be attributable to prenatal intrauterine factors rather than to later effects of the individual’s social-psychological environment.

    (MZ = “identical”)

    https://arthurjensen.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/IQ%E2%80%99s-of-Identical-Twins-Reared-Apart-1973-by-Arthur-Robert-Jensen.pdf

    • Replies: @res
  81. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Aft

    Social interaction beyond 2 SD is certainly doable, but it’s just abundantly clear the people involved think of things at vastly different levels of gradation and complexity.

    So we can cite the huge popularity of his autobiographical books, as confirmation of the widely held belief that the IQ of Nobel Prize winning physicist, Richard Feynman, really was only 123.

    But are we to conclude that his physics was really rather simple-minded too?

    • Replies: @Aft
  82. res says:
    @Aft

    I saw your comment in iSteve on this topic: http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-genetics-of-g/#comment-3445839
    but this is probably a better place to discuss it.

    Do you know much about the rest of the body of research on the 2 SD gap idea? I looked into that a little in this comment (and others in the thread): http://www.unz.com/jthompson/men-4-points-ahead/#comment-2037276
    but would like to learn more.

    • Replies: @Aft
  83. res says:
    @Aft

    Worth mentioning the distinctions between mono/di chorionic/amniotic MZ twins in this context.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monochorionic_twins

    I like the graphic there, but I don’t think SVG files display here.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Placentation.svg

  84. Factorize says:
    @Aft

    Aft, thank you for your reply. What differences in IQ are present for other social relationships (e.g., friends, spouses, etc.)? One might imagine that having spouses with more similar IQs could lead to more stable marriages as identical twins often appear able to form very strong relationships with each other. While the 2 SD rule might apply for leader and follower, I would be interested to know what the optimal IQ difference might be for friendships etc. ? Might the tendency for somewhat older men to marry somewhat younger spouses be related to the crystallized intelligence that this would offer?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  85. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Factorize

    Might the tendency for somewhat older men to marry somewhat younger spouses be related to the crystallized intelligence that this would offer?

    LOL. Most women are too intelligent to give a flying flamingo for the crystallized intelligence of the old geezers they might marry. Its the Porsche they drive and the assumed bank balance that counts.

  86. Corvinus says:
    @CanSpeccy

    The tax break produces a socialist end by incentivizing an activity that squarely rests upon the shoulders of individuals, rather than government. Furthermore, the tax break means less money coming into government coffers. Other taxes may be imposed to make up for the lost revenue. So there is a transfer of wealth that takes place. Moreover, higher taxes MAY dissuade couples from producing offspring and is one of several factors that reduce fertility rates.

    “How do you propose ensuring your proposal becomes national policy? What are the potential, negative political, economic, and social side effects of said national policy?

    Look, I’m not running a political campaign, or launching a political party.”

    Convenient cop-out on your part. Such a policy has to meet public scrutiny. Certainly you have thought about the possible long-range issues which may arise. Besides, how are we assured that the tax break will lead to couples being more inclined to have more offspring? Furthermore, if your proposal is open to non-whites, would their inclusion negate the overall benefits of more whites having children?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  87. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Corvinus

    As usual, you ask a bunch questions far more complex in their ramifications than you seem to understand and expect me to spend a significant part of what remains of my one and only life responding to each and every point. Sorry, I have no intention of doing so. But I will respond to one point:

    Furthermore, if your proposal is open to non-whites …

    Why this repeated reference to skin color? If someone is a citizen of any civilized country they have all the rights and responsibilities of any other citizen without regard to skin color.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    , @Corvinus
  88. Aft says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Math-verbal split.

    Verbally he’s quite ordinary (120s or 130ish verbal IQ probably).

    Mathematically: he won the Putnam exam without any real prep. That’s a guaranteed well beyond 5 SD math ability.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  89. Aft says:
    @res

    No real body of research.

    She’s mostly talking about management or leadership, as well as friendships.

    Best ways to overcome it are age (experience and declines in fluid intelligence) and travel. Being in different countries with very different IQ levels hones one’s calibration very quickly.

    Full book: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/47403

  90. dc.sunsets [AKA "Astonished"] says:
    @Factorize

    I’d happily exist in a world full of people like me.

    That said, you must have very little experience with the biological sciences. Come back in a few years after you’ve graduated high school and lived long enough to realize that this life isn’t a plot in a Sci Fi novel.

  91. dc.sunsets [AKA "Astonished"] says:
    @CanSpeccy

    CanSpeccy, repeat after me: “Do not engage with trolls. Do not engage with trolls.”

    Corry is a fat, childless woman with an addiction to circular internet wars. One of my more enjoyable moments of late was when I learned to stop engaging in such debates. People who do so are (in my view) working out one or another of their own issues, and I’ve worked on my own successfully enough to stop responding to those who are clearly so immersed.

    No one changes anyone else’s mind in forums like this. Each of us has only so many seconds of life on the clock, and it’s a special kind of clown who induces others to waste theirs in such unpromising and dissatisfying ways.

    Heinlein, for what it’s worth, probably nailed it best when one of his fictional characters said that he didn’t hunt down and kill those who’d wronged (or annoyed) him, he just outlived them. While I can’t necessarily do that, I can laugh my way along My Own Path, comfortable and satisfying as it is, secure in the knowledge that those who tried to poke me are miserable on Theirs.

    • LOL: CanSpeccy
    • Replies: @Corvinus
  92. Corvinus says:
    @CanSpeccy

    “As usual, you ask a bunch questions far more complex in their ramifications than you seem to understand and expect me to spend a significant part of what remains of my one and only life responding to each and every point.”

    And right on cue, you offer a suggestion without considering the long-term consequences, as if your Ivory Tower concept is the panacea to the apparent issue of “below white replacement fertility”.

    “Why this repeated reference to skin color? If someone is a citizen of any civilized country they have all the rights and responsibilities of any other citizen without regard to skin color.”

    I absolutely agree, but there is a tendency by a good number of the Alt Right who vehemently oppose this concept.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  93. Corvinus says:
    @dc.sunsets

    LOL. I’m not the one who has a sock puppet on this fine blog, Astonished. But management does appreciate your virtue signaling SJW style.

  94. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Aft

    Math-verbal split.

    Verbally he’s quite ordinary (120s or 130ish verbal IQ probably).

    Mathematically: he won the Putnam exam without any real prep

    Agree.

    And that fact makes bullshit of the idea that IQ measures intelligence.

    And that’s ignoring the fact that there are many other “splits” one could identify among the components of intelligence.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  95. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Corvinus

    “Why this repeated reference to skin color? If someone is a citizen of any civilized country they have all the rights and responsibilities of any other citizen without regard to skin color.”

    I absolutely agree, but there is a tendency by a good number of the Alt Right who vehemently oppose this concept.

    But by raising the issue you sought to insinuate that I am a racist.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  96. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    Re: The intelligence of Richard Feynman

    Math-verbal split.

    But that’s not exactly right.

    Fact is, Feynman’s genius was manifest in his use of words, but only in a limited domain.

    As an exponent of physics, Feynman is the outstanding literary figure of the 20th Century. There have been hundreds if not thousands of popular accounts of quantum physics, but Feynman’s QED is surely far and away the best. Likewise, Feynman’s three-volume, Lectures in Physics, is described by Wikipedia as “is perhaps the most popular physics book ever written.”

    On the other hand, Feynman’s The Meaning of It All, three lectures relating to science and society (which Feynman did not wish to see published), reads like Einstein’s futile ramblings about similar matters of which he had no appreciable grasp.

    Feynman thus had enormous verbal facility in conveying an understanding of physics, a facility that he developed through intense focus that precluded the development of broader verbal skills.

    Thus I would say that the apparent verbal–Math split in Feynman’s intelligence reflected the way that a exceptional innate intelligence evolved as the result of an obsessive attention to questions about physical reality.

  97. Corvinus says:
    @CanSpeccy

    “But by raising the issue you sought to insinuate that I am a racist.”

    That was not the intention, you are reading into it too much Besides, I would make such a charge directly; in other words, there would be no guesswork involved when it comes to that specific accusation. But, since we are all racist, there has been no need to use that term.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  98. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Corvinus

    But, since we are all racist

    So now you’re making accusation of racism direct! LOL

  99. Corvinus says:

    “So now you’re making accusation of racism direct! LOL”

    Pay close attention. I have not, to be recollection, called a poster here by these exact words–“You are a racist”. Why? We are all racist. Inherently. Life is so much simpler when we acknowledge this fact rather than run away from it.

    I mean, it’s proven science.

    https://phys.org/news/2017-04-infants-racial-bias-members.html

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  100. CanSpeccy says:
    @Corvinus

    Unz should provide a “Bollocks” button for convenient response to Corvy and the like.

  101. Late to the party.

    What happens when, similar to utopian vs full sample, we compare within gender splits? Do we have sufficient sample sizes within each gender, within IQ groups, within utopian vs….

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All James Thompson Comments via RSS