Full Twitter thread unrolled -> https://en.rattibha.com/thread/1792267464258048408

This person basically uses a bunch of graphs to argue that status of elite groups persist under even the most extreme cases. For example, the elites targeted in the PRC and the Soviet Union bounced back in elite status after a generation or two, how many elite southern planter families regained their status after the Civil War, how formally interned Japanese Americans reached the same homeownership rate as the non-interned Japanese Americans after a decade, etc.

But then they suggest that

So status persists throughout history even in the most extreme scenarios. What explains this? Genes play a major role. Consider how status persists when the status is accurized purely through chance.

Is this really a reasonable conclusion to draw? I saw one tweet criticizing this, saying

this information is very interesting, but it’s nonsense to think this implies genetics/talent/effort causes success. i see this as evidence that social/human capital is persistent and important for economic development, so inequality on this dimension breeds economic inequality https://x.com/leonveliezer/status/1792413175301935124

Which seems like a good objection to me.

What do you all think?

  • IzyaKatzmann [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    2·
    6 months ago

    heredity is what you want, genes started as a concept and a material basis was found after.

    doesn’t take into account rna (rnaseq), proteins (proteomics), epigenetics, only the genome which is a picture of an arrow in flight, nothing dynamic or honestly really material.

    heredity would also include behavior, environment, status or rank, finances, etc. though at present the view is gene-centric and adaptationist (which is wrong) and little more than a reformation of eugenics and platonic forms which are idealistic (there is no best genes, only what is well suited at a particular time and place) and have been thoroughly moved on from for decades if not centuries.

    what can trace heredity or traits, whatever you would like to call the apparent continuation of characteristics both physical and social, is stuff like what your parents voting preferences are (or the area one is from, or income) and what faith if any one’s parents have. look into US data, this is a robust and known phenomena, yet no one talks about therr being a faith gene or political gene.

    richard c lewontin is a marxist evolutionary biologist, has some pretty high honours and a great record of activism. id read his dialectical biologist, or listen to his massey lecture biology as ideology: the doctrine of dna.

    EDIT also women and people who give birth are left out because development is crucial, the field is often called evo-devo, evolution and development.

    does a zygote develop under ideal circumstances? did the mtdna and mitochondrion from (typically) the mother transfer without issue? if a mutant mitochondrion is given with certain mutations (quite unlikely) the baby can sometimes survive a few years and then die because essentially their energy production or usage could not keep up with their increase in mass–square cube law stuff.