[hesitantly raising hand in seminar] do you think ... possibly ... there might be nepotism at work here? is that a thing we should study? or inherited strong networks and superior networking opportunities? but mostly, like, nepotism? [gunshot rings out]https://twitter.com/aaronclauset/status/1375116257473789953 …
-
-
Absolutely agree that there is even more nepotism in investment banks though, many failsons saved by being hired to pump hands at Berkin, Phelps & Co.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Also staying in academia is arguably not a good marker for talent /intelligence. Anecdotally, the absolute top stays in academia, the next layer is much more inclined to go to industry. Also worth thinking how much had academia expanded over the last 30-50 years
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/ … your numbers seem low
-
80% heritability means that 80% of variance in a population is explained by *individual* genetics (this is what twin studies measure). What we care about here is the variance explained by parental genetics, which is much lower (e.g. see here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Correlations_between_IQ_and_degree_of_genetic_relatedness …)
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This argument smells off to me. If you'll let me make the (ok, insane) assumption that top 1% IQ=you get a PhD, then 0.4 corr means that if your parent has a PhD, you're 8-9x more likely to have one than the general population. If tails are fatter then more extreme..
-
You get that result because of your (as you noted, insane) assumption that top 1% of the distribution gets a PhD. Plug in a more realistic distribution and you will get a more realistic result.
- Show replies
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.
We’d love to know.