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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ZWQbpkzl@hexbear.net 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Scrolled through all that to find the bibliography and was seeing shit about american slaves and Japanese samurai fly by and I'm like wut

Bibliography was a pastebin to more links mostly nber.org. But not in the pastebin, worthy of its own link was this: https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/how-do-elite-groups-form

It starts by citing the Entebbe raids to argu that Bibi is genetically elite. Also it goes on to talk about Coptic Christians and Japanese Samurai.