.8 is a huge correlation wow. And it's pretty wild that couples still assorted strongly even when women didn't have access to formal education or occupations -- people still found someone "on their level." Genetics is wild.
I hope that at some not too distant point in the future, we'll be able to embrace similar results of genetic study. I think the part most are missing, is that if it's genetics, then there's no point in knowing, as it's set in stone. I see the exact opposite being true...if we know, not think but know, that the reason this or that group is doing well or not is genetic, then we can very accurately aim legislation. Greg points to this actually when he says that we can yank monies from education & put it elsewhere where it may actually make some difference. How many failed attempts at changing group outcomes in education do we need before we stop spinning our wheels? The answer may be infinite, I'm afraid, because we tend to put cognitive ability in a much different fundamental category than physical attributes...but the thing is, they're all physical/genetic attributes. It's such a tough issue, especially in 2023, where skin color is everything...but Greg & others are showing that there very likely is a clear answer in the nature vs. nurture debate. It's become fashionable to say it's both, but I think the truth is it's largely nature, with a bit of nurture sprinkled on top for good measure.
His ideas regarding mobility are not new ones. Researches are similar to the study of Francis Galton, 19th century. But it is impressing that dr. Clark is not afraid to explore this forbidden subject
@@davyroger3773 could you please provide a source where Galton tells something racist? I’ve read only his “Hereditary genius” and didn’t see such ideas in that book
Always found Clark fascinating , even if I'm a bit reserved about his results. Essentially what he's saying is that society counter to common beliefs, at least in England is fundamentally a meritocracy. Wouldn't this result also be predicted by a model in which families tend to marry within their social class? and within the same family profession to boot? Simply out of convenience and social norms. Of course it would be interesting to see which factor here is the most causally determinative , the "genetics of ability" or simply the social class/family profession or both and in what proportion? This is kind of obvious in how the royalty, nobility and the rich dynasties work. They tend to marry within each other to concentrate their wealth and influence and lock in their gains. It may very well be, that it just so happens that to get to the top, required cunning, drive and intellect just as much as being a scientist or a scholar does, but even if that is true, it still doesn't remove the moral dimension and of course the social inheritance going on here. Another thing I found interesting, is that the error correction to his calculation is a bit of a circular argument. The whole idea is to see if social status/success is heritable across intergenerational lines , but his correction is just to use the correlation of the son to the parent? Maybe there is some technicality I'm missing here, but it seems circular to me. He also brings up this whole half a year of extra education, which I thought was a moot point. The differential is the quality of education one gets not simply the quantity. Besides in what way is having half a year extra of schooling is going to look good on one's resume? I just don't see how this matters. He makes an excellent point about the over focus of governments on "education" as some magic spell that supposedly improves outcomes for everybody, and how much of that funding should go to healthcare. In my opinion the entire idea of K-12 education across the world is a disaster and a huge waste of time. Most ppl around the world, only benefit from literacy and arithmetic and that's not necessarily because they're genetically inferior but because usually their economies are not sophisticated enough to require anything past those basic skills. Why those economies are that way is a different topic and there is a massive literature on this topic. There's also the perennial problem of overproduction of "educated" people, which makes entrance into academia either more competitive or outsources the problem to the job market, which results in a lot of masters degree Uber drivers and such (no offence intended to Uber drivers, but what's the point of the education?). One thing I find frustrating about Clark's narrative, is him claiming that its a dead end to try to figure out why some countries are poor and why others are rich. The answer depends entirely on where along the causal chain would you want to examine? if you want the most proximate cause, one of them is economic complexity and currency purchasing power. If you want deeper causes, then obviously differential histories, imperialism and geography play a massive role. It's possible that there are genetic elements going on in addition to those things, but that's not what Clark's research is about, and no one has provided convincing evidence that genetics is a major cause. I understand his frustration with how academia works, I agree broadly that this type of research might be too radioactive to touch in his discipline. But this isn't then a blank check to just assume that all criticisms of his work are erroneous and that any work showing positive effects of intervention on social outcomes is just nonsensical wishful thinking. I'm not in his field so I don't know exactly what's going on, but experience has taught me to be skeptical of not just the mainstream but even the contrarian rabble raisers who claim they're being prosecuted and there's somehow a conspiracy or a bias against them. As marketing gimmicks go, that's a great one. A final point on Denmark and Scandinavia, the social interventions aren't supposed to improve "social mobility" but other indicators of well being, like income, longevity, inequality, health, happiness...etc. Unless of course the interventions are differential in such a way that they're specifically supposed to achieve exactly that. Social mobility isn't the only thing we care about. And in fact even if genetic composition accounted for only 10% of the variance in social success, the more you intervene to redistribute and reduce inequality in general, the more those social success markers will be differentiated precisely on genetic lines, maybe after some significant initial reshuffling of society . We live in a competitive intellectually demanding social structure, so there is only so much "successful positions" to go around. But why would that matter anyways? our goal shouldn't be to make everyone, a scientist, or a businessman, most jobs still need to be filled by average people anyways.
One of the most important podcasts of all time with sound, heretical insights that transform the way one sees the world.
.8 is a huge correlation wow. And it's pretty wild that couples still assorted strongly even when women didn't have access to formal education or occupations -- people still found someone "on their level." Genetics is wild.
Very useful and enjoyable interview.
I hope that at some not too distant point in the future, we'll be able to embrace similar results of genetic study. I think the part most are missing, is that if it's genetics, then there's no point in knowing, as it's set in stone. I see the exact opposite being true...if we know, not think but know, that the reason this or that group is doing well or not is genetic, then we can very accurately aim legislation. Greg points to this actually when he says that we can yank monies from education & put it elsewhere where it may actually make some difference. How many failed attempts at changing group outcomes in education do we need before we stop spinning our wheels? The answer may be infinite, I'm afraid, because we tend to put cognitive ability in a much different fundamental category than physical attributes...but the thing is, they're all physical/genetic attributes. It's such a tough issue, especially in 2023, where skin color is everything...but Greg & others are showing that there very likely is a clear answer in the nature vs. nurture debate. It's become fashionable to say it's both, but I think the truth is it's largely nature, with a bit of nurture sprinkled on top for good measure.
Hsu’s correct, Clark deserves the Nobel for his tripartite work on social mobility.
His ideas regarding mobility are not new ones. Researches are similar to the study of Francis Galton, 19th century.
But it is impressing that dr. Clark is not afraid to explore this forbidden subject
@@vad1m30 comparing him to Galton is analogous to calling him a racist, no?
@@davyroger3773 could you please provide a source where Galton tells something racist? I’ve read only his “Hereditary genius” and didn’t see such ideas in that book
@@davyroger3773 No.
Extremely thought provoking interview. Especially w.r.t the future developmental prospects of humanity.
greg is a smart cookie
Fascinating and insightful research and so very enlightening. Let's hope the social justice crusaders miss this one so we can a meaningful debate.
Great discussion as always Hsu.
cool
Good stuff.
25:50 paper
Always found Clark fascinating , even if I'm a bit reserved about his results. Essentially what he's saying is that society counter to common beliefs, at least in England is fundamentally a meritocracy.
Wouldn't this result also be predicted by a model in which families tend to marry within their social class? and within the same family profession to boot? Simply out of convenience and social norms. Of course it would be interesting to see which factor here is the most causally determinative , the "genetics of ability" or simply the social class/family profession or both and in what proportion?
This is kind of obvious in how the royalty, nobility and the rich dynasties work. They tend to marry within each other to concentrate their wealth and influence and lock in their gains. It may very well be, that it just so happens that to get to the top, required cunning, drive and intellect just as much as being a scientist or a scholar does, but even if that is true, it still doesn't remove the moral dimension and of course the social inheritance going on here.
Another thing I found interesting, is that the error correction to his calculation is a bit of a circular argument. The whole idea is to see if social status/success is heritable across intergenerational lines , but his correction is just to use the correlation of the son to the parent? Maybe there is some technicality I'm missing here, but it seems circular to me.
He also brings up this whole half a year of extra education, which I thought was a moot point. The differential is the quality of education one gets not simply the quantity. Besides in what way is having half a year extra of schooling is going to look good on one's resume? I just don't see how this matters.
He makes an excellent point about the over focus of governments on "education" as some magic spell that supposedly improves outcomes for everybody, and how much of that funding should go to healthcare. In my opinion the entire idea of K-12 education across the world is a disaster and a huge waste of time. Most ppl around the world, only benefit from literacy and arithmetic and that's not necessarily because they're genetically inferior but because usually their economies are not sophisticated enough to require anything past those basic skills. Why those economies are that way is a different topic and there is a massive literature on this topic. There's also the perennial problem of overproduction of "educated" people, which makes entrance into academia either more competitive or outsources the problem to the job market, which results in a lot of masters degree Uber drivers and such (no offence intended to Uber drivers, but what's the point of the education?).
One thing I find frustrating about Clark's narrative, is him claiming that its a dead end to try to figure out why some countries are poor and why others are rich. The answer depends entirely on where along the causal chain would you want to examine? if you want the most proximate cause, one of them is economic complexity and currency purchasing power. If you want deeper causes, then obviously differential histories, imperialism and geography play a massive role. It's possible that there are genetic elements going on in addition to those things, but that's not what Clark's research is about, and no one has provided convincing evidence that genetics is a major cause.
I understand his frustration with how academia works, I agree broadly that this type of research might be too radioactive to touch in his discipline. But this isn't then a blank check to just assume that all criticisms of his work are erroneous and that any work showing positive effects of intervention on social outcomes is just nonsensical wishful thinking. I'm not in his field so I don't know exactly what's going on, but experience has taught me to be skeptical of not just the mainstream but even the contrarian rabble raisers who claim they're being prosecuted and there's somehow a conspiracy or a bias against them. As marketing gimmicks go, that's a great one.
A final point on Denmark and Scandinavia, the social interventions aren't supposed to improve "social mobility" but other indicators of well being, like income, longevity, inequality, health, happiness...etc. Unless of course the interventions are differential in such a way that they're specifically supposed to achieve exactly that. Social mobility isn't the only thing we care about. And in fact even if genetic composition accounted for only 10% of the variance in social success, the more you intervene to redistribute and reduce inequality in general, the more those social success markers will be differentiated precisely on genetic lines, maybe after some significant initial reshuffling of society . We live in a competitive intellectually demanding social structure, so there is only so much "successful positions" to go around. But why would that matter anyways? our goal shouldn't be to make everyone, a scientist, or a businessman, most jobs still need to be filled by average people anyways.
You missed so much of the point that you should think about reading the books.
@@kreek22 Dismissive remarks are not refutations.
@@Project1312 In this case, it's not worth the time.
@@kreek22 Missed what exactly?
Fascinating!