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]

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"?

I never stated such. What I have stated is that a rise in assorative mating will still lead to greater inequality and less social mobility _even if_ there is a greater reliance on merit and _even if_ society creates a more equal environment for all children (home environment, education, opportunity to engage in hobbies and extra curricular activities, etc.) and adults.

The left seems to have some sort of assumption that increasing inequality and less class mobility is a symptom of unequal environments for children and various sorts of discrimination and these are the only causes that are significant. The reality it is not the only significant cause and totally eliminating this cause may not lead to a drop in inequality and class mobility as the other causes will come to dominate.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

I fail to see how your conclusion of "Not so" logically follows. Perhaps assortative mating is exacerbated by the unequal opportunities of life.

- - - Updated - - -

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

You have it backwards. If there is a greater reliance on merit, then increases in assorative mating will lead to greater inequality and less social mobility.

Then why worry about that if there is not a greater 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.

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.

I have no clue how you got that from what I wrote. I never said it and I don't believe it.

 

[Bronzeage]

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.

....

When have humans had a "random mating pattern"?


Salmon have a random mating pattern, where the sperm cells wander with the current, hoping to find an egg.

 

[Axulus]

I fail to see how your conclusion of "Not so" logically follows. Perhaps assortative mating is exacerbated by the unequal opportunities of life.

That seems like an unlikely hypothesis. You have any evidence for it?

Then why worry about that if there is not a greater reliance on merit?

I should have said "Even if there is a greater reliance on merit, then increases in assorative mating can still lead to greater inequality and less social mobility."

 

[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.

....

When have humans had a "random mating pattern"?


Salmon have a random mating pattern, where the sperm cells wander with the current, hoping to find an egg.

The point is that there is a rise in partners mating who are of similar education levels. There are varying levels of non-random assortative mating and those levels have increased over the past few decades.

 

[Trausti]

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.

To me it's like stating that the Earth is not the center of the universe in middle-ages Europe. It's one of the things you just can't say in our times: genes matter. Inheritance matters. And I think there's a bit of dishonestly in the censure. Instead of actually noticing and addressing that genes and inheritance matter, we continue under the delusion that if we just spent more money here or make new programs there, inequality will decrease. But nature is a bitch: http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/education/2015/09/28/study-some-pre-k-programs-effective-but-not-over-time/72965950/

I imagine the reason few people talk about the increased inequality from assortative mating is because it makes them uncomfortable. It cracks the edifice of equality which some just can't handle.

 

[Bronzeage]

When have humans had a "random mating pattern"?


Salmon have a random mating pattern, where the sperm cells wander with the current, hoping to find an egg.

The point is that there is a rise in partners mating who are of similar educational levels. There are varying levels of non-random assorative mating and those levels have increased over the past few decades.

Assorative mating does sound hot.

The use of the word "non-random" is out of place, since randomness in human choice of partners has never existed.

 

[Axulus]

The point is that there is a rise in partners mating who are of similar educational levels. There are varying levels of non-random assorative mating and those levels have increased over the past few decades.

Assorative mating does sound hot.

The use of the word "non-random" is out of place, since randomness in human choice of partners has never existed.

You are quibbling over terminology. We are talking about the level of similarity in people who hook up with each other. There is a rise in the level of similarity in people who are mating over the past few decades, especially when it comes to the education level they have obtained (high school dropout, high school graduate, bachler's degree, masters degree, PhD, etc.)

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Excuse me

This assorative mating (which sounds like selective breeding) of which you speak.

In the "upper classes" over the long haul won't mean much since educated women tend to have children later in life and in fewer number, with more such women today than ever opting out of child birth all together choosing adoption (of "lower class" children) or to live childless. So I am not sure what this is all about.

 

[bilby]

There is more than enough non-assorative mating going on to keep the gene pool well mixed; and even if there wasn't, a cause that has only been around for a few decades is not going to have a measurable effect in a species that has two or three decades between generations.

Maybe, IF the trends continue, there will be an effect worth taking into account in a few centuries. But it seems extraordinarily implausible that there would be a detectable effect today.

 

[Derec]

Excuse me

This assorative mating (which sounds like selective breeding) of which you speak.

In the "upper classes" over the long haul won't mean much since educated women tend to have children later in life and in fewer number, with more such women today than ever opting out of child birth all together choosing adoption (of "lower class" children) or to live childless. So I am not sure what this is all about.

In the end, it's about Idiocracy.

 

[bilby]

Excuse me

This assorative mating (which sounds like selective breeding) of which you speak.

In the "upper classes" over the long haul won't mean much since educated women tend to have children later in life and in fewer number, with more such women today than ever opting out of child birth all together choosing adoption (of "lower class" children) or to live childless. So I am not sure what this is all about.

In the end, it's about Idiocracy.

 

[Jayjay]

I think assortative mating is irrelevant for the same reason why eugenics doesn't work: it takes too damn long before we're all Morlocks and Eloi. Technology and cultural factors are like to change a dozen times over before assortative mating can do its thing.

 

[laughing dog]

That seems like an unlikely hypothesis. You have any evidence for it?

Why does it seem unlikely? If unequal opportunities skews outcomes, then it would make sense that greater inequality means more assortative mating not less. People do not view genes when they mate - they are attracted by physical, emotional, and SES characteristics (with the last two groups influenced by unequal opportunities).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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"?

What makes you think this is what he's saying?

Rather, he's saying that in a society where people advance on merit assortative mating will lead to increasing disparity between the top and the bottom--which will likely increase the amount of assortative mating.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Where do you find eugenics in his post?

He's talking about how people behave, not about forcing them to behave in any given fashion.

- - - Updated - - -

I fail to see how your conclusion of "Not so" logically follows. Perhaps assortative mating is exacerbated by the unequal opportunities of life.

And perhaps you're grasping at straws to find anything to try to rebut his post.

The point is simple: In a society where merit has any bearing on how people turn out assortative mating causes inequality.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

To me it's like stating that the Earth is not the center of the universe in middle-ages Europe. It's one of the things you just can't say in our times: genes matter. Inheritance matters. And I think there's a bit of dishonestly in the censure. Instead of actually noticing and addressing that genes and inheritance matter, we continue under the delusion that if we just spent more money here or make new programs there, inequality will decrease. But nature is a bitch: http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/education/2015/09/28/study-some-pre-k-programs-effective-but-not-over-time/72965950/

I imagine the reason few people talk about the increased inequality from assortative mating is because it makes them uncomfortable. It cracks the edifice of equality which some just can't handle.

All that's showing is that the programs aren't enough to overcome bad parenting, not that it's impossible to fix the situation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think assortative mating is irrelevant for the same reason why eugenics doesn't work: it takes too damn long before we're all Morlocks and Eloi. Technology and cultural factors are like to change a dozen times over before assortative mating can do its thing.

From a Morlock/Eloi standpoint you're right. That's not going to happen. However, simply causing inequality is simply a question of how big an effect, not whether it's going to happen.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That seems like an unlikely hypothesis. You have any evidence for it?

Why does it seem unlikely? If unequal opportunities skews outcomes, then it would make sense that greater inequality means more assortative mating not less. People do not view genes when they mate - they are attracted by physical, emotional, and SES characteristics (with the last two groups influenced by unequal opportunities).

That would only apply to assortative mating based on wealth, not on mental factors.

 

[Canard DuJour]

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

Since the Neolithic, no. Over recent centuries, yes. Over recent decades, no.

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.

After several centuries of comprehensive education with no inherited wealth and (somehow) standardised parenting, perhaps. Right now, any genetic effect of assortative mating by academic attainment would be dwarfed by the effects of exogenetic inheritance. The assumption you attribute to the left is probably good over the short term.

Earlier, I assumed that by "merit" you meant academic attainment and skills rather than those which are purely down to inherent genetic potential. While I take your point, I don't think the distinction is meaningful outside an impossibly standardised environment. As ronburgundy says, a person with genes but no experience is a lump of ignorant, incapable flesh. If (as seems likely) the environment multiplies small genetic differences, switching genes on and off over an individual's lifetime, assortative mating in a highly standardised environment might consolidate genetic advantage but not multiply it. But then it's doubtful there'd be all that much assortative mating.