what if people don't make the decision based on their post facto "after a subsidy we'll have..." but based on whether they're experiencing real economic growth at that immediate moment?
I don't think it's as simple as "city would get tall, country would get short". Yes, city would get tall. No, country wouldn't necessarily get short. It's not nearly as closed a system as the city, and it's supply of tallness is not so finite.
-
-
oh you get paid more in the city, are awarded higher social standing, and have more sex partners. tall people tend to choose the city. even if they have short parents. maybe especially if.
-
granted. I find the argument that city gets influx of tall immigrants, and net increase in local tallness over time, to be coherent. It's the other half I'm questioning. Country does not necessarily get "drained".
-
genes is as genes does you can't have one without the other
-
why? as mentioned previously, the country is not nearly as closed of a system as the country.
-
if you're proposing a link like city dwellers retiring to the country and having more kids, it doesn't appear to be happening. yet. massively polygenic systems behave like a powder, kinda. The universities are enriching the g factor. The more efficient they are →
-
> if you're proposing a link like city dwellers retiring to the country and having more kids, no, i'm not. i'm saying that the very large population size of the country (hundreds of millions+, full order of magnitude larger than city) makes this kind of calculus useless.
-
what mechanism suggests we should consider IQ to be a highly conserved quantity in large populations? what mechanism suggests that new high IQ individuals are not emerging from large populations at a faster rate than the city shreds them?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.