Full Twitter thread unrolled -> https://en.rattibha.com/thread/1792267464258048408
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?
First of all this strikes me as the kind of study that would be very difficult to complete over this time period even in a country that was fully developed. There are so many places where judgement will have come into place.
Also, I feel the need to ask the obvious: did they actually measure the same families over time, or did they do something much easier, and much less indicative of the point they are trying to make.
Even then though obviously genetics is the stupidest explanation. Of the top of my head I would suggest education, contacts, retained wealth, or the same old bullshit: shit floats to the top.