I haven’t read the book so I am not familiar with his specific argument.

However he’s an economist, not a geneticist. And the description of the book on Amazon focuses on last names and ancestry, not genetics.

https://www.amazon.com/Son-Also-Rises-Surnames-Princeton/dp/...

This book looks to me like it’s arguing that social policies don’t do much to affect familial networks, not that it’s arguing that the elites all have magical genes that keep them on top.

▲

dash2 8 days ago | parent [-]

I have read the book, and also several of his other papers :-)

▲

keiferski 8 days ago | parent [-]

Okay, in that case can you give a summary of why the data doesn’t show family networks and weak wealth redistribution policies aren’t the reason for why certain family names stay in elite classes?

▲

dash2 7 days ago | parent | next [-]

One example is that elite families before the Chinese revolution became elite again after the Deng reforms, even though the revolution itself was so redistributive (and repressive) that they became poorer than average during the revolutionary period: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27053/revi...

Other reasons are the specific predictions that a genetic explanation makes (exactly 50% contribution from males and females) which Greg Clark argues are borne out by the data; and the persistence through very different social regimes over long historical periods.

I should say that not everyone agrees, and this is just scraping the surface of the debate.

▲

pcrh 8 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Family names are not as strongly correlated with genetics as you might be assuming.

Consider that for each generation the genetics of the family founder are diluted by 50% (assuming that consanguineous relations are excluded). So after 5 generations or so, only ~3% of the heirs' DNA is specific to the family founder.

So, the fact that names per se better predict outcomes than DNA very strongly points to social factors as the major determinants.

▲

dash2 7 days ago | parent [-]

Unless there's very strong assortative mating...

▲

pcrh 7 days ago | parent [-]

Wouldn't assortative mating that is sufficiently strong to overcome the 50% dilution per generation amount to consanguinous mating?

▲

dash2 7 days ago | parent [-]

Not necessarily. You only have to overcome the dilution on specific dimensions. Suppose everyone mates only on intelligence, and marries a person of exactly equal genetic intelligence to themselves. Then there's no dilution per generation on intelligence, though there is on e.g. height.

	▲	pcrh 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		The question here is why names are so highly predictive. It seems highly unlikely that each generation would be selecting on precisely the same genetic features of a particularly prominent family name. This is because that which provides social prominence is not consistent over time.