Genes and success

An article by David Wessel in the W$J says:

Consider the genes that a person inherits. Somewhere between a third and 40% of the link between a parent's income and a child's has to do with genes, researchers find. It's easy to assert that if smart successful people have smart kids who are successful, so be it.

I have little doubt that genes are an important component of how much income one earns. But unfortunately David Wessel tries to check some of the political correctness by kicking the book The Bell Curve.

But despite the celebrated case for the power of inherited IQ made by the authors of "The Bell Curve," most other researchers find that IQ explains very little of the way parents pass advantages to their children. Only "a modest fraction of the economic resemblance between parents and children" is tied to their IQs, says Harvard University sociologist Christopher Jencks.

Liberals hate The Bell Curve because they want to believe that everyone is equal, the the fact that we genetically inherit our intelligence demonstrates that we are not born equal at all. Equal under the law, yes, but not equal in ability. I wouldn't pay attention to anything that some liberal Harvard professor says on this topic. But I will anecdotally point out that the correlation between intelligence and income is far from perfect, or I'd be making a lot more money.

Other genetic inheritances may be more economically valuable -- and may cause Americans more discomfort. "Traits like 'ability' are widely seen as legitimate sources of economic inequality," Mr. Jencks and colleague Laura Tach write in an essay for a forthcoming book on mobility. "Traits like beauty and skin color are not seen this way."

Indeed one's appearance is an important component of one's earning ability, a fact that few people acknowledge. Kudos to Mr. Wessel for writing about it. And obviously physical appearance is an hereditary trait to a certain extent. Yet probably, with height excepted, intelligence is actually influenced by heredity to a higher degree than physical attractiveness! I don't think people realize to what a large extent the illusion of attractiveness is environmental. Nor do they realize to what a large extent intelligence is hereditary.

Comments

[Michael H.]

Hi Half Sigma
"But I will anecdotally point out that the correlation between intelligence and income is far from perfect, or I'd be making a lot more money."
Perhaps this poor correlation is partly measurement error. Perhaps we have better data on our incomes than on our intelligence.

This is a subject I studied in grad school. It is notoriously difficult to seperate the parental effect from the schooling effect in estimating the causes of children's school success or their later job success. Parents of high ability make sure their children go to good schools. In fact the best indicator of the quality of a school is the quality (income and education) of the parents of the children that go to that school.

[Half Sigma]

There is a virtuous circle effect happening, I agree. But at the root of the virtuous circle is inherited intelligence.

[mikeca]

Half Sigma said “Liberals hate The Bell Curve because they want to believe that everyone is equal, the fact that we genetically inherit our intelligence demonstrates that we are not born equal at all.”

This is complete nonsense.

First, liberals do not believe that “everyone is equal”. What they believe is that everyone should be given equal opportunity to succeed or fails base on their individual ability. This means that regardless of whether your parents are rich or poor, you get the same educational opportunities. I do not doubt that on average the children of rich parents are more intelligent than the children of poor parents, but the difference is probably smaller than you think and it is only on average. Not every child of rich parents is above average intelligence and not every child of poor parents is below average intelligence. Each child should be given the same opportunity to succeed or fail based on ability, and not pre judged based on race or their parent’s income.

Inheritance is a significant factor in intelligence, but it is not the only factor. Furthermore, there is a lot more than just intelligence to being successful in life. There are lots of very intelligent people that are complete failures in life. Lack of ambition, over confidence, lack of social skills, or poor judgment can all lead to ruin even for the most intelligent. There are lots of not very intelligent people that are non the less very successful because they have some other skills.

Liberals hate ‘The Bell Curve’ because is not based on sound science, and is used to justify racial prejudice.

[Half Sigma]

mikeca said: "Each child should be given the same opportunity to succeed or fail based on ability, and not pre judged based on race or their parent’s income."

I agree with this statement more than you can imagine, but unfortunately it is liberal educational policies that actually prevent this from happening, because liberals design education policy under the false assumption that all children are equal. If instead children were separated according to their ability, and taught at a level appropriate to their ability, then the poor but bright kid would wind up in a better classroom, but instead becuase he's born in a neighborhood where children are, on average, less intelligent, he's stuck in the same classroom with them where the teacher is too busy being a disciplinarian to teach anything.

"There are lots of very intelligent people that are complete failures in life."

The above is true, but I find it very unfortunate that liberals like to CELEBRATE this fact. When a very intelligent person is a complete failure in life, this to me demonstrates a failure of SOCIETY to ensure that his intelligence was propery nurtured and directed towards a useful occupation.

[Michael H.]

Hi Half Sigma

"There are lots of very intelligent people that are complete failures in life."

The above is true, but I find it very unfortunate that liberals like to CELEBRATE this fact. When a very intelligent person is a complete failure in life, this to me demonstrates a failure of SOCIETY to ensure that his intelligence was propery nurtured and directed towards a useful occupation.

If the intelligent person is a failure because he or she lacks integrity, then I think the failure is well deserved. I don't think society can be blamed for having bad people in it.

[probligo]

"...it is liberal educational policies that actually prevent this from happening, because liberals design education policy under the false assumption that all children are equal. If instead children were separated according to their ability, and taught at a level appropriate to their ability, then the poor but bright kid would wind up in a better classroom, but instead becuase he's born in a neighborhood where children are, on average, less intelligent, he's stuck in the same classroom with them where the teacher is too busy being a disciplinarian to teach anything...

What a total load of unadulterated cow pat.

How important is education? Is it as important as law and order? Is it as important as health? How much should one value the contribution of a teacher to society? More than a policeman or less? More than a doctor or less?

How important is education? Should it be a parent's first responsibility? Or should it rank somewhere down there after earning an income, buying the Porsche or the Dodge Ram, somewhere behind having a good time on Saturday night...

How important is education? Should the parents' role in education be greater or lesser than the schools'?

Every child deserves access to education. Every child deserves access to the same quality of education.

Separating children on the basis of a perceived ability is wrong, totally wrong. That as an approach smacks of eugenics; the kind of experimentations that Mengele carried out; the kind of pseudo-science that people use to denigrate those who are different in race or belief or religion...

I am a professional, an accountant as it happens. I come from a rural area where unemployment is running in excess of 30% (the national average is 3.8%). The schools that I was taught at were state funded and controlled. The pass rates in national examinations from those schools were lower than 10% - with the results ranked for 50% pass rates. According to your argument I should be one of the many drunken, pot smoking, idle, unemployed and unemployable layabouts breeding dozens of undisciplined kids because there is nothing better to do than f* the woman after getting p*'d in the pub...

I started my post-school life with the equivalent of USD100 (todays value, it was NZD10 in 1967), a large suitcase with all of my clothes including some of my school uniform, a one-way bus ticket to Auckland 200 miles away, and a healthy respect for the value of education and learning. Which of those was the most valuable do you think?

Robert, you need some life education urgently. You need to get out there and learn about facts of life like "poverty cycles", "multi-generational dependancy", and the reality of growing up poor.

[mikeca]

Half Sigma said “If instead children were separated according to their ability, and taught at a level appropriate to their ability, then the poor but bright kid would wind up in a better classroom, but instead becuase he's born in a neighborhood where children are, on average, less intelligent, he's stuck in the same classroom with them where the teacher is too busy being a disciplinarian to teach anything.”

I do not think you can blame neighborhood schools on “liberal educational policies”. Very few public schools separate children in lowest grades, but almost all schools have honors or advanced classes in middle and high school. The schools were I live start to have separate classes in some subjects for advanced students in 4th grade. To have honors/gifted/advanced classes in lower grades, you would have a smaller number of larger elementary schools, which is not a popular idea with parents.

Half Sigma said “When a very intelligent person is a complete failure in life, this to me demonstrates a failure of SOCIETY to ensure that his intelligence was propery nurtured and directed towards a useful occupation.”

Since when does society have an obligation to ensure that a person’s intelligence is “property nurtured and directed towards a useful occupation?” What happened to personal responsibility?

It is, of course, in the best interest of society that people’s abilities are nurtured and directed towards useful occupations, but that does not translate into an obligation, and it does not mean that individuals should blame society for not finding them a job with a comfortable middle class salary. The freedom to succeed is also the freedom to fail. If society tried to guarantee everyone a successful career, it would only end up blocking many people from their best career choices. Life is a competition, when it becomes clear that no matter how hard you work, you are never going to win this race, it is time to move on and rethink your career plans.

[William]

Good points. Keep in mind that income is not a very accurate measure of intelligence. Although rich people are usually intelligent, intelligent people aren't always rich. Take for example University professors, although they are intelligent, what usually attracts them to a job is not a high salary, but instead the environment and the ability to pursue their studies.

Environmental factors play a much larger role than you credit them with. I'm curious, you don't by any chance believe that the reason for 500 years of European (& their migrants) domination was superior genetics, do you?

[Carol]

Inherited genes are certainly an important ingredient
in the success of an individual but how about just pure
luck and should not society help those who did
not receive their fair share of either? Oh, I forgot,
life just isn't fair is it?

[mike cee]

dear sirs:

when people are making comparisons which are making sound science then you are comparing apples for apples. blacks are not considered comparable in studies like these then we make a fair comparison.