Perhaps if they inherited the ability from a parent, the parent is more likely to have an income as a result of investing in their education for example.
I mean, maybe, but this is definitely doing causal modeling backwards
Yes, it's possible that there are strong genetic predictors of household income, as a lot of people seem to want there to be for some reason, but when predicting the behavior of a child, their immediate circumstances are a much more parsimonious explanation for their behavior than some genetic factor strongly predicting both the circumstances and the behavior. I'm not saying that genetics being somewhat causally upstream of income is an inherently bad hypothesis, but this kind of correlation analysis doesn't support it as well as it does an environmental influence on time preference
This is the crux of the controversy. Some people think behaviors have 0% genetic inheritance and some people think it’s >0%. To assume low income parents can only cause low future orientation, but not the reverse, you must be in the former camp.
> Some people desperately want poverty to be due to individual moral failure, as opposed to a systemic failure
There are zealots on both sides. Brilliant people are poor because they were never given an opportunity while rich nincompoops accumulate aristocratic power. At the same time, plenty of people are poor because they can’t make good decisions or have zero emotional self control while a few go from rags to riches. The problem is blended, and it shouldn’t be beyond reproach to question whether some factors are heritable, whether genetically or through cultural transfer.
But one of those opinions flows power from the many to the few while the other the opposite. It is in and of itself political.
It of course shouldn’t be beyond reproach to do the research but it seems reasonable to be more critical of research that implies some implicit reinforcement of the current power structures because that’s what we’d get from bad research too.
> one of those opinions flows power from the many to the few while the other the opposite. It is in and of itself political
This is true of many things. That doesn’t mean asking the question is tainted. Anyone using either hypothesis as the basis for policy is similarly flawed in my view.
> seems reasonable to be more critical of research that implies some implicit reinforcement of the current power structures
There are massive power structures that benefit from the promulgation of either hypothesis.
> Anyone using either hypothesis as the basis for policy is similarly flawed in my view.
This is a tacit endorsement of the current power structures. I don’t think that is _wrong_ just a political position. One I agree with which is uninteresting given the forum.
Your second hypothesis is one we might test. Can we formulate an experiment that asks how often brilliant minds cross class boundaries? Or idiots bring their house down?
> This is a tacit endorsement of the current power structures
Not really, rather than assuming either theory is right just test giving resources to poor and sees if it improves outcomes. If it does and the resources were well spent, preventing people from becoming criminals or other burdens on society has massive value so continue and maybe do more of it. If it did little then don't, why spend on stuff that doesn't help?
That is much better than just assuming one is true and implementing measures mindlessly, like many governments do today. For example there is no evidence that diversity training improves any metrics, yet it is still required by many governments.
When people just assume one explanation you get a lot of effort put into things that doesn't improve the lives of anyone.
And some people are open to the possibility/probability that personal actions and choices have an influence over the propensity to experience poverty, in order to understand (and intervene where feasible) to break the observed cycle in a structural way.
