Why is no one talking about the rise in assorative mating? A perfect meritocracy and high levels of assorative mating would lead to greater class div

[Axulus]

Assortative mating is a mating pattern and a form of sexual selection in which individuals with similar genotypes and/or phenotypes mate with one another more frequently than would be expected under a random mating pattern.

What we see is that people of the same educational level are hooking up with each other more than ever:

Patterns of intermarriage between persons who have varying levels of educational attainment are indicators of socioeconomic closure and affect the family backgrounds of children. This article documents trends in educational assortative mating throughout the twentieth century in the United States, using socioeconomic data on adults observed in several large cross section surveys collected between 1972 and 2010 and on their parents who married a generation earlier. Spousal resemblance on educational attainment was very high in the early twentieth century, declined to an all-time low for young couples in the early 1950s, and has increased steadily since then. These trends broadly parallel the compression and expansion of socioeconomic inequality in the United States over the twentieth century. Additionally, educationally similar parents are more likely to have offspring who themselves marry within their own educational level. If homogamy in the parent generation leads to homogamy in the offspring generation, this may reinforce the secular trend toward increased homogamy.

http://ann.sagepub.com/content/663/1/117.full.pdf

If we live in a perfect meritocracy, then this means those with the genes that allow one to succeed at higher education, including masters and PhD level, are mating with those who are attaining similar levels of success. Those genes are getting passed down onto their children. Those who are not graduating high school are hooking up with others who are not graduating high school. To the extent that their genes played a role in their failure to graduate high school, those genes are getting passed on to their children.

The more that society becomes a meritocracy, the greater influence genes will have on one's success. In fact, genes and only genes will influence one's outcome in a perfect meritocracy as those with the inherent abilities will get the maximum nurturing of those abilities and will obtain those opportunities that reach the very threshold of their abilities.

Since people of similar abilities and success are hooking up with each other, we would expect there to be less class mobility and greater inequality over time the closer society becomes a perfect meritocracy as those with the best genes have parents who are the most successful and pass those genes on to the next generation and vice versa.

 

[zorq]

Eh, what is the problem here? Is social mobility in a society always a good thing? Or is it only good when it is helping to lubricate a more efficient distribuition of labor?

If everyone is already performing to the fullest of their ability and resources are divided to nurture everyone in an optimal way then social mobility would only cause the system to become more inefficient.

Also, Considering that the birth rate of the highly educated is way below sustainable levels. The highly educated elites in the world will breed themselves out of existence in a couple thousand years anyway. Problem solved...?

 

[Canard DuJour]

Assortative mating is a mating pattern and a form of sexual selection in which individuals with similar genotypes and/or phenotypes mate with one another more frequently than would be expected under a random mating pattern.

What we see is that people of the same educational level are hooking up with each other more than ever:

Patterns of intermarriage between persons who have varying levels of educational attainment are indicators of socioeconomic closure and affect the family backgrounds of children. This article documents trends in educational assortative mating throughout the twentieth century in the United States, using socioeconomic data on adults observed in several large cross section surveys collected between 1972 and 2010 and on their parents who married a generation earlier. Spousal resemblance on educational attainment was very high in the early twentieth century, declined to an all-time low for young couples in the early 1950s, and has increased steadily since then. These trends broadly parallel the compression and expansion of socioeconomic inequality in the United States over the twentieth century. Additionally, educationally similar parents are more likely to have offspring who themselves marry within their own educational level. If homogamy in the parent generation leads to homogamy in the offspring generation, this may reinforce the secular trend toward increased homogamy.

http://ann.sagepub.com/content/663/1/117.full.pdf

If we live in a perfect meritocracy, then this means those with the genes that allow one to succeed at higher education, including masters and PhD level, are mating with those who are attaining similar levels of success. Those genes are getting passed down onto their children. Those who are not graduating high school are hooking up with others who are not graduating high school. To the extent that their genes played a role in their failure to graduate high school, those genes are getting passed on to their children.

The more that society becomes a meritocracy, the greater influence genes will have on one's success. In fact, genes and only genes will influence one's outcome in a perfect meritocracy as those with the inherent abilities will get the maximum nurturing of those abilities and will obtain those opportunities that reach the very threshold of their abilities.

Since people of similar abilities and success are hooking up with each other, we would expect there to be less class mobility and greater inequality over time the closer society becomes a perfect meritocracy as those with the best genes have parents who are the most successful and pass those genes on to the next generation and vice versa.

While I suspect the heritability is more exogenetic, I think your point stands. There's lots of glib talk about meritocracy and social mobility as if they were part and parcel. But they very likely aren't over time, given assortative mating (and therefore parenting).

That's why equality of opportunity isn't enough. Since we don't chose our parents, there will be less of it over time without some measures to ensure equality of outcome. Or not-too-inequitable outcome. An imperfect meritocracy is preferable to a perfect one with an hereditary elite caste.

Also, social mobility is a zero-sum game with winners and losers - which no one seems to want to talk about. Better the rungs on the ladder aren't so far apart and moving up or down it not such a big deal.

 

[untermensche]

What allows people to "succeed" is a combination of genes and experience.

Genes can't always help if your experience is destructive.

Like you live in a place where many don't like you, and deny you opportunity, simply because of the color of your skin.

Or you are born in poverty and were exposed to a substandard education at home and in school.

 

[SimpleDon]

Assortative mating is a mating pattern and a form of sexual selection in which individuals with similar genotypes and/or phenotypes mate with one another more frequently than would be expected under a random mating pattern.

What we see is that people of the same educational level are hooking up with each other more than ever:

Patterns of intermarriage between persons who have varying levels of educational attainment are indicators of socioeconomic closure and affect the family backgrounds of children. This article documents trends in educational assortative mating throughout the twentieth century in the United States, using socioeconomic data on adults observed in several large cross section surveys collected between 1972 and 2010 and on their parents who married a generation earlier. Spousal resemblance on educational attainment was very high in the early twentieth century, declined to an all-time low for young couples in the early 1950s, and has increased steadily since then. These trends broadly parallel the compression and expansion of socioeconomic inequality in the United States over the twentieth century. Additionally, educationally similar parents are more likely to have offspring who themselves marry within their own educational level. If homogamy in the parent generation leads to homogamy in the offspring generation, this may reinforce the secular trend toward increased homogamy.

http://ann.sagepub.com/content/663/1/117.full.pdf

If we live in a perfect meritocracy, then this means those with the genes that allow one to succeed at higher education, including masters and PhD level, are mating with those who are attaining similar levels of success. Those genes are getting passed down onto their children. Those who are not graduating high school are hooking up with others who are not graduating high school. To the extent that their genes played a role in their failure to graduate high school, those genes are getting passed on to their children.

The more that society becomes a meritocracy, the greater influence genes will have on one's success. In fact, genes and only genes will influence one's outcome in a perfect meritocracy as those with the inherent abilities will get the maximum nurturing of those abilities and will obtain those opportunities that reach the very threshold of their abilities.

Since people of similar abilities and success are hooking up with each other, we would expect there to be less class mobility and greater inequality over time the closer society becomes a perfect meritocracy as those with the best genes have parents who are the most successful and pass those genes on to the next generation and vice versa.

A very interesting point. I think that people aren't talking about because it is it is widely accepted to be true. It is the inescapable and uncontrollable fraction of social mobility. Smart people marry smart people and have smart children. Beautiful people marry beautiful people and have beautiful children. Rich people marry ... and poor people ... you get the idea.

Social mobility should be about everyone being allowed to reach their potential and realizing that not everyone has the same potential. This is a reason to reduce the distance between the top and the bottom rungs of society. A reason to make sure that we are not over rewarding the high achievers and likewise that we are not punishing the low achievers. Certainly today in the US we are doing both.

 

[Derec]

Like you live in a place where many don't like you, and deny you opportunity, simply because of the color of your skin.

You mean like white and Asian students applying to universities?

Also I thought assorative mating didn't result in children. <rimshot/>

 

[untermensche]

Like you live in a place where many don't like you, and deny you opportunity, simply because of the color of your skin.

You mean like white and Asian students applying to universities?

You mean Universities don't like the people they have in greatest numbers?

They have a funny way of showing their hatred.

 

[ZiprHead]

Also I thought assorative mating didn't result in children. <rimshot/>

Rimjob works better to avoid conception.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Okay, at face value this is a really good point. People find it easier to form relationships with a spouse/partner they can relate to due to similar education level, similar culture, similar background, shared experiences. From a breeding/microevolution standpoint that WOULD tend to produce more stratified layers in a given society where the gap between the haves and the have-nots is both by inheritance and by genetics.

But that ASSUMES we live in an actual meritocracy, and seems to imply that the a lack of socioeconomic mobility is actually EVIDENCE of a meritocracy due to assortative mating. That seems, to me, a flawed premise.

What's more, it also assumes that intelligence is purely a function of breeding + education. That is also a flawed premise as it suggests an overly simplistic relationship between genetics and intelligence. There are HUGE variations of intelligence between children born to the exact same parents, and there is no shortage of otherwise intelligent and highly motivated people being born to desperately poor families. You could say that ACCESS can be passed on from one generation to another (e.g. "Legacies" finding the college admissions process suspiciously easy) but that wouldn't be a meritocracy, would it?

The more that society becomes a meritocracy, the greater influence genes will have on one's success. In fact, genes and only genes will influence one's outcome in a perfect meritocracy as those with the inherent abilities will get the maximum nurturing of those abilities and will obtain those opportunities that reach the very threshold of their abilities.

Only in a perfect meritocracy, yes. That is, in a situation where all children are given equal access to the same educational opportunities and achieve success based purely on their innate abilities, self-focus and self-motivation; where graduates are given opportunities to showcase the skills they have acquired and rewarded based entirely on their success and failure, and where all people who attempt to achieve something are evaluated fairly based on the circumstances.

We don't have that in society. Talent and work ethic isn't actually that hard to come by, but access and respect is EXTREMELY difficult to obtain. It is a lot easier for a normal person to do a job competently -- or even exceptionally -- than it is for that same person to convince an employer that he is capable of doing that job competently. A bachelor's degree is, theoretically, a certification that would prove such a person is indeed competent to do his job; the problem is, obtaining a bachelor's degree is expensive and time consuming, and being intelligence and hard-working is NOT a trait that correlates directly with having a lot of money and free time.

Since people of similar abilities and success are hooking up with each other, we would expect there to be less class mobility and greater inequality over time the closer society becomes a perfect meritocracy as those with the best genes have parents who are the most successful and pass those genes on to the next generation and vice versa.

Well, no... people with similar levels of access and reputation would tend to hook up because they travel in the same social circles. Access and respect is shared among people who have it, and people who don't never even get their feet in the door.

A really great example of this is what's been happening in the black community. There is a large and growing divide between the black middle class and families in the inner city. There are a lot of reasons for this, but the biggest one is that middle-class families have spent the last two or three generations struggling to form connections and get access to institutions that shut black people out for hundreds of years; they are VERY careful about who they allow to use those connections for fear of having that hard-earned finger-hold stomped out of existence. The result is that middle-class black families that manage to escape from the ghetto (in the past AND presently) generally turn their backs on the city and are skiddish about reinvesting back into the community.

 

[ksen]

I'm actually more concerned about Axulus' reading list.

Good lord, what made you go and find an article like this? Or were you just reading it for fun and thought we'd all enjoy discussing it?

 

[ronburgundy]

Assortative mating is a mating pattern and a form of sexual selection in which individuals with similar genotypes and/or phenotypes mate with one another more frequently than would be expected under a random mating pattern.

What we see is that people of the same educational level are hooking up with each other more than ever:

Patterns of intermarriage between persons who have varying levels of educational attainment are indicators of socioeconomic closure and affect the family backgrounds of children. This article documents trends in educational assortative mating throughout the twentieth century in the United States, using socioeconomic data on adults observed in several large cross section surveys collected between 1972 and 2010 and on their parents who married a generation earlier. Spousal resemblance on educational attainment was very high in the early twentieth century, declined to an all-time low for young couples in the early 1950s, and has increased steadily since then. These trends broadly parallel the compression and expansion of socioeconomic inequality in the United States over the twentieth century. Additionally, educationally similar parents are more likely to have offspring who themselves marry within their own educational level. If homogamy in the parent generation leads to homogamy in the offspring generation, this may reinforce the secular trend toward increased homogamy.

http://ann.sagepub.com/content/663/1/117.full.pdf

If we live in a perfect meritocracy, then this means those with the genes that allow one to succeed at higher education, including masters and PhD level, are mating with those who are attaining similar levels of success. Those genes are getting passed down onto their children. Those who are not graduating high school are hooking up with others who are not graduating high school. To the extent that their genes played a role in their failure to graduate high school, those genes are getting passed on to their children.

The more that society becomes a meritocracy, the greater influence genes will have on one's success. In fact, genes and only genes will influence one's outcome in a perfect meritocracy as those with the inherent abilities will get the maximum nurturing of those abilities and will obtain those opportunities that reach the very threshold of their abilities.

Since people of similar abilities and success are hooking up with each other, we would expect there to be less class mobility and greater inequality over time the closer society becomes a perfect meritocracy as those with the best genes have parents who are the most successful and pass those genes on to the next generation and vice versa.

I suspect the #1 reason no is talking about it is that nothing can be done about it short of forced mating. Another factor is that obviously some ideological segments of society deny against the mountain of evidence that genetics plays any role in cognitive skills and learning. Everything your talking about requires that fact as a starting premise.

OTOH, you make a rather extreme and unreasonable inference in your OP, as bolded above. Every long term outcome and difference in outcomes between people is massively influenced by uncontrallable random chance events. A Meritocracy is a formal social/political system where rewards are deliberately given to people based upon perceived merit/ability. Thus, it only impacts deliberate controlled actions and rewards. It cannot eliminate the massive impact of random chance factors. Plus, it has nothing directly to do with innate genetic abilities, just ability at the time of handing out the rewards. Non-genetic factors begin their influence even before birth and continue non-stop. At each moment when "ability" is assessed, non-genetic factors are contributing to those abilities. In addition, there is always error in the assessment of merit and ability, which allows the influence of other factors on the decisions and outcomes.
Only if society started ignoring actual ability and merit and instead used direct and perfect measurement of genetic markers that contribute to (but only partly) ability and merit would genes become the sole thing determining outcomes. Thus, if genes became the only determinant of outcomes, it would be proof that a true meritocracy does not exist.

It's important to remember that a person with genes but no living experiences is largely a lump of ignorant flesh incapable of any intellectual task or any complex physical task. Experience is a necessary cause of every ability or merit than anyone cares about, thus variance in those experiences are inherent to variance in ability or merit that anyone cares about. Getting back to my prior point about some ideologues not wanting to allow any role for genes, they are partly over-reacting to the dangerous and also completely unscientific notion that genes do, could, or should be the only thing that determines the outcomes we care about.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A very interesting point. I think that people aren't talking about because it is it is widely accepted to be true. It is the inescapable and uncontrollable fraction of social mobility. Smart people marry smart people and have smart children. Beautiful people marry beautiful people and have beautiful children. Rich people marry ... and poor people ... you get the idea.

Social mobility should be about everyone being allowed to reach their potential and realizing that not everyone has the same potential. This is a reason to reduce the distance between the top and the bottom rungs of society. A reason to make sure that we are not over rewarding the high achievers and likewise that we are not punishing the low achievers. Certainly today in the US we are doing both.

The thing is we have a bunch of people who assert that the lack of perfect mobility is evidence of discrimination and society keeping people down, rather than a simple reflection of genetic variation + assortative mating.

I also think this is becoming more of a factor. When women used to be held down there was less difference in their achievement levels and thus less to sort them out on. Also, the internet widens the dating pool and thus how close a match one can find.

 

[J842P]

But that ASSUMES we live in an actual meritocracy, and seems to imply that the a lack of socioeconomic mobility is actually EVIDENCE of a meritocracy due to assortative mating. That seems, to me, a flawed premise.

You don't need a perfect meritocracy for this to be an issue. And although I agree with your latter point, I don't think that's what Auxulus was trying to imply.

 

[Axulus]

But that ASSUMES we live in an actual meritocracy, and seems to imply that the a lack of socioeconomic mobility is actually EVIDENCE of a meritocracy due to assortative mating. That seems, to me, a flawed premise.

You don't need a perfect meritocracy for this to be an issue. And although I agree with your latter point, I don't think that's what Auxulus was trying to imply.

Correct - what I find interesting is that lack of class mobility and/or widening inequality does not necessarily mean that there is a lack of equality of opportunity and that people get the positions they do have based on merit and not class since this is the outcome we would see with high levels of assorative mating. In fact, we would see the problem get worse as we become a more meritocratic society if rates of assorative mating continue to rise.

 

[Axulus]

Eh, what is the problem here? Is social mobility in a society always a good thing? Or is it only good when it is helping to lubricate a more efficient distribuition of labor?

If everyone is already performing to the fullest of their ability and resources are divided to nurture everyone in an optimal way then social mobility would only cause the system to become more inefficient.

Also, Considering that the birth rate of the highly educated is way below sustainable levels. The highly educated elites in the world will breed themselves out of existence in a couple thousand years anyway. Problem solved...?

Social mobility is a good thing if people rise and fall based on merit. To the extent there are outside barriers preventing them from rising or falling based on their merit, we should take a look at how the situation can be improved.

However, when one is stuck from rising above their position because they lack merit, then the fact that they lack mobility is not an indication that something is wrong with society.

 

[Axulus]

Assortative mating is a mating pattern and a form of sexual selection in which individuals with similar genotypes and/or phenotypes mate with one another more frequently than would be expected under a random mating pattern.

What we see is that people of the same educational level are hooking up with each other more than ever:



http://ann.sagepub.com/content/663/1/117.full.pdf

If we live in a perfect meritocracy, then this means those with the genes that allow one to succeed at higher education, including masters and PhD level, are mating with those who are attaining similar levels of success. Those genes are getting passed down onto their children. Those who are not graduating high school are hooking up with others who are not graduating high school. To the extent that their genes played a role in their failure to graduate high school, those genes are getting passed on to their children.

The more that society becomes a meritocracy, the greater influence genes will have on one's success. In fact, genes and only genes will influence one's outcome in a perfect meritocracy as those with the inherent abilities will get the maximum nurturing of those abilities and will obtain those opportunities that reach the very threshold of their abilities.

Since people of similar abilities and success are hooking up with each other, we would expect there to be less class mobility and greater inequality over time the closer society becomes a perfect meritocracy as those with the best genes have parents who are the most successful and pass those genes on to the next generation and vice versa.

While I suspect the heritability is more exogenetic, I think your point stands. There's lots of glib talk about meritocracy and social mobility as if they were part and parcel. But they very likely aren't over time, given assortative mating (and therefore parenting).

That's why equality of opportunity isn't enough. Since we don't chose our parents, there will be less of it over time without some measures to ensure equality of outcome. Or not-too-inequitable outcome. An imperfect meritocracy is preferable to a perfect one with an hereditary elite caste.

Also, social mobility is a zero-sum game with winners and losers - which no one seems to want to talk about. Better the rungs on the ladder aren't so far apart and moving up or down it not such a big deal.

I have always supported the notion that everyone should have a minimum standard of living. Where the disagreement lies is who pays for it and what specific level should that minimum standard of living be set at.

However, this wouldn't mean that lack of class mobility is necessarily a problem. Unless there is some sort of implementation of near perfect equality, which can only be achieved using draconian authoritarian means, a cure far worse than the disease, there will always be class divides even in a meritocratic society, and such divides may widen over time.

 

[Trausti]

However, when one is stuck from rising above their position because they lack merit, then the fact that they lack mobility is not an indication that something is wrong with society.

QFT. This observation should be applied to the so many isms said to plague our society; but the purveyors of the isms reap too much benefit from parading the isms that such simple logic will continue to be ignored.

 

[laughing dog]

You don't need a perfect meritocracy for this to be an issue. And although I agree with your latter point, I don't think that's what Auxulus was trying to imply.

Correct - what I find interesting is that lack of class mobility and/or widening inequality does not necessarily mean that there is a lack of equality of opportunity and that people get the positions they do have based on merit and not class since this is the outcome we would see with high levels of assorative mating. In fact, we would see the problem get worse as we become a more meritocratic society if rates of assorative mating continue to rise.

Why makes you think that more assorative mating leads to a more reliance on "merit"?

 

[Axulus]

Assortative mating is a mating pattern and a form of sexual selection in which individuals with similar genotypes and/or phenotypes mate with one another more frequently than would be expected under a random mating pattern.

What we see is that people of the same educational level are hooking up with each other more than ever:



http://ann.sagepub.com/content/663/1/117.full.pdf

If we live in a perfect meritocracy, then this means those with the genes that allow one to succeed at higher education, including masters and PhD level, are mating with those who are attaining similar levels of success. Those genes are getting passed down onto their children. Those who are not graduating high school are hooking up with others who are not graduating high school. To the extent that their genes played a role in their failure to graduate high school, those genes are getting passed on to their children.

The more that society becomes a meritocracy, the greater influence genes will have on one's success. In fact, genes and only genes will influence one's outcome in a perfect meritocracy as those with the inherent abilities will get the maximum nurturing of those abilities and will obtain those opportunities that reach the very threshold of their abilities.

Since people of similar abilities and success are hooking up with each other, we would expect there to be less class mobility and greater inequality over time the closer society becomes a perfect meritocracy as those with the best genes have parents who are the most successful and pass those genes on to the next generation and vice versa.

I suspect the #1 reason no is talking about it is that nothing can be done about it short of forced mating. Another factor is that obviously some ideological segments of society deny against the mountain of evidence that genetics plays any role in cognitive skills and learning. Everything your talking about requires that fact as a starting premise.

OTOH, you make a rather extreme and unreasonable inference in your OP, as bolded above. Every long term outcome and difference in outcomes between people is massively influenced by uncontrallable random chance events. A Meritocracy is a formal social/political system where rewards are deliberately given to people based upon perceived merit/ability. Thus, it only impacts deliberate controlled actions and rewards. It cannot eliminate the massive impact of random chance factors. Plus, it has nothing directly to do with innate genetic abilities, just ability at the time of handing out the rewards. Non-genetic factors begin their influence even before birth and continue non-stop. At each moment when "ability" is assessed, non-genetic factors are contributing to those abilities. In addition, there is always error in the assessment of merit and ability, which allows the influence of other factors on the decisions and outcomes.
Only if society started ignoring actual ability and merit and instead used direct and perfect measurement of genetic markers that contribute to (but only partly) ability and merit would genes become the sole thing determining outcomes. Thus, if genes became the only determinant of outcomes, it would be proof that a true meritocracy does not exist.

It's important to remember that a person with genes but no living experiences is largely a lump of ignorant flesh incapable of any intellectual task or any complex physical task. Experience is a necessary cause of every ability or merit than anyone cares about, thus variance in those experiences are inherent to variance in ability or merit that anyone cares about. Getting back to my prior point about some ideologues not wanting to allow any role for genes, they are partly over-reacting to the dangerous and also completely unscientific notion that genes do, could, or should be the only thing that determines the outcomes we care about.

I agree that there will always be random uncontrollable events that can not be made equal for everyone. However, I was talking about a perfect meritocracy in a theoretical sense: in the sense that everyone is given the ideal environment and perfectly equal opportunities to realize their maximum potential. The greater extent that society moves in this direction (more equal environment for all), the greater the influence that genes will have on one's outcome.

This seems to be what we are moving towards to a greater extent over time and is something especially advocated for by those on the left: every child deserves good quality education, a loving and nurturing home environment, opportunities to explore hobbies and engage in extra curricular activities, etc. The assumption is that if we as a society do this really well for all children, class mobility will increase and inequality will decrease. Not so, which is what I find really interesting. Now, of course these things are good for other reasons, but the assumed impact on inequality and class mobility could very well be negligible and the actual data could show it getting worse as this effect is dwarfed by the effect from the rise in assorative mating.

The left assumes that if these data are getting worse, then it means we are not doing enough in creating more equal environment for everyone. Yet this would not correct these perceived problems for the reasons stated.

 

[arkirk]

Assortative mating is a mating pattern and a form of sexual selection in which individuals with similar genotypes and/or phenotypes mate with one another more frequently than would be expected under a random mating pattern.

What we see is that people of the same educational level are hooking up with each other more than ever:

Patterns of intermarriage between persons who have varying levels of educational attainment are indicators of socioeconomic closure and affect the family backgrounds of children. This article documents trends in educational assortative mating throughout the twentieth century in the United States, using socioeconomic data on adults observed in several large cross section surveys collected between 1972 and 2010 and on their parents who married a generation earlier. Spousal resemblance on educational attainment was very high in the early twentieth century, declined to an all-time low for young couples in the early 1950s, and has increased steadily since then. These trends broadly parallel the compression and expansion of socioeconomic inequality in the United States over the twentieth century. Additionally, educationally similar parents are more likely to have offspring who themselves marry within their own educational level. If homogamy in the parent generation leads to homogamy in the offspring generation, this may reinforce the secular trend toward increased homogamy.

http://ann.sagepub.com/content/663/1/117.full.pdf

If we live in a perfect meritocracy, then this means those with the genes that allow one to succeed at higher education, including masters and PhD level, are mating with those who are attaining similar levels of success. Those genes are getting passed down onto their children. Those who are not graduating high school are hooking up with others who are not graduating high school. To the extent that their genes played a role in their failure to graduate high school, those genes are getting passed on to their children.

The more that society becomes a meritocracy, the greater influence genes will have on one's success. In fact, genes and only genes will influence one's outcome in a perfect meritocracy as those with the inherent abilities will get the maximum nurturing of those abilities and will obtain those opportunities that reach the very threshold of their abilities.

Since people of similar abilities and success are hooking up with each other, we would expect there to be less class mobility and greater inequality over time the closer society becomes a perfect meritocracy as those with the best genes have parents who are the most successful and pass those genes on to the next generation and vice versa.

So what you are saying is that you are a proponent of eugenics....a long disproven and disapproved practice based on the lack of understanding that builds up in racist societies between people of different races and CLASSES. People with eugenic views prove fertile ground for racist political recruiters. You are providing a continuing argument for increasing economic differences and the race thing is just part of the problem. You want to blame genetics for problems that result from social injustice.