You left off public school rankings. Which are tied to the areas income (well educated parents have the time, income, and genetics to produce high achieving kids). Which drives up home prices. And the cycle reinforces itself to some extent.
Too many Section 8 residents will hurt school scores, which hurts home values, which hurts school scores, ...
I have no idea how many it would take to impact values in such a way. But, the school board meetings I’ve attended show that if nothing else, wealthy parents are fiercely protective of their school districts.
Do you really think higher income individuals have better genes? Overall? ...Or better in a narrow, rat-race sense? Genetic expression changes based on life experience doesn't it? I really don't think section 8 recipients are genetically inferior. Surely that isn't what you are saying, right? I'm not a biologist, but I would wager worse outcomes are mostly a result of continuous stress.
Of course it's not the rich people being genetically superior.
It's the chance of a genetically fortunate person (with a great nature-given voice, or intelligence, or strength and perseverance) to become rich through it, and maybe pass it to children. This chance is not very high, of course.
If you believe that intelligence is at all heritable, then it would be an astonishing fact if low-income individuals had the same genetic distribution as high-income individuals.
If you don't believe that intelligence is at all heritable, then I'm not sure how you would explain why it is that people with genetic defects like Down's syndrome have below average IQs.
In terms of intelligence adoption studies usually show that inheritance is mostly through genetics. But for wealth this doesn't seem to be the case. There is a genetic component but it seems to be mostly nurture.
Again, not a biologist, but another HN user has told me phrenology is a better measure of intelligence than genes... Which would imply that genetics simply isn't suitable for accurately measuring any form of intelligence.
In regards to arguing that genetic defects cause lower intelligence, you have to define intelligence. The rate at which certain, particular categories of knowledge are learned? The speed at which knowledge is utilized? Are autistic savants the most intelligent people to have ever lived? People with down syndrome seem adept at reading and responding to body language, in my experience. Precise empathy is certainly a form of intelligence. I think our intelligences are diffuse. In the abscence of how biological data relates to these, we are just pattern matching.
After that, you have to ascertain what is even a factor in those intelligences: the total pool of genes we can draw from, the ways the genes express themselves on or off, or the delicate mosh-pit of biochemistry weaving our personality together. There are too many variables to control for, variables that aren't understood. It seems clear to me that environment dictates more than heritability of genetics. How much more is up for debate, but I'm not confident genes will be adequately contextualized in my lifetime.
Well, if another HN user told you that something with a genetic component is a better measure of intelligence (whatever the Hell that means) than genes...
"People with Down's syndrome are not less intelligent than average" is the sort of thing that you can only say in an ultra-progressive environment. It would not be taken seriously by most people. Under any reasonable definition of intelligence, those with Down's syndrome have less of it on average.
Your observation about multiple intelligences isn't novel or profound. The interesting thing about intelligence is that different kinds of intelligence are positively correlated (SAT math scores correlate with SAT verbal scores. Musical ability is correlated with mathematical ability. Etc. etc.)
I don't even think a statement like "It seems clear to me that environment dictates more than heritability of genetics" is intelligible. The idea of dividing it into X% genetics versus (100 - X)% environment betrays an incredibly naive understanding of the question.
The interesting thing about intelligence is that different kinds of intelligence are positively correlated
It's a bit more than that. If you look at all the different measure of intelligence that people have come up with like vocabulary, finding patterns in shapes, SAT scores, etc, and do a factor analysis there seems to be more or less a single factor behind the correlation. Some of these, like vocabulary, have an additional large effect from training. Some, like vocabulary and SAT verbal scores, have a strong correlation independent of the the rest of these varied scores. But in general there seems to be one factor, the hypothetical g, that explains why everything is correlated together. And it seems to explain part of other test results too that don't seem to be what we would normally consider intelligence, like the classic reflex test that measures how long it takes you to press a button after a light turns on.
IQ tests try to measure this 'g' by using a number of different subtests chosen to not respond strongly to practice. But these, like all tests, have a certain amount of noise and shouldn't be taken as absolute truth.
Being a professional athlete is very lucrative. Do you think that professional athletes have the exact same genetic profile as the general public, and their professional success is entirely a result of their environment?
It's funny how even the most restrained statements with any eugenic implications are outright rejected, but people don't bat an eye at Lysenkoism.
Definitely “better” in a narrow sense. Whatever traits (not just genetic, but economic, environmental, etc), taken together, make a parent successful, also tend to make offspring successful. Maybe the genetic component is far smaller than I realize?
Too many Section 8 residents will hurt school scores, which hurts home values, which hurts school scores, ...
I have no idea how many it would take to impact values in such a way. But, the school board meetings I’ve attended show that if nothing else, wealthy parents are fiercely protective of their school districts.