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?

  • marxisthayaca [he/him,they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    37·
    7 months ago

    Imma say this, twitter threads are not worth the toilet paper you could print them on. Unless the source is an actual academic, with a specialized focus, then they are just spewing out random nonsense. For something this controversial, you’d want to see not just individual studies but meta analysis looking at genetics and “success” with clear definitions.

    Anybody attributing familial success and status to genes is ultimately a eugenicist, and not much else.