Scots Taffer on 8/11/2006 at 01:49
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
The second generation, which either grew up as the wealth was accumulated, or soon thereafter, usually tended to be quirky, but pleasant. They had a decent appreciation for money, work and interacting with people. But since much of it was second hand, as relayed by their own parents teachings instead of their own experiences, were unable to pass this along to their children.
The third generation, whose parents had grown up rich, were almost undoubtedly obnoxious, self-absorbed, badly adjusted shitheels.
That's interesting, as I'd say I think the problem can often occur in the second generation - but the relative disparities in wealth could account for the generational differences in my experience and your friend's.
I've seen, in my family as well as in my friends, a hard-working family come into money and become the first wealthy generation, they are generally well-adjusted and seek to provide the best for their children. However in doing so they often exceed in what they
should give in order for it to actually be the "best" for their children. Their children, having had the best provided for them and never really having had to experience a lack for something they want, don't have a proper understanding of where money comes from and how one gets any, this is worsened if they are in a protected-bubble of rich kids because then the microcosm becomes so much more intense. As no one outside their social circle has ever had to slum it or their family has never been short on money, the concept of how difficult it can be to make ends meet is completely alien to them which means that they are ultimately naive to real life economics. This doesn't mean they become the spoiled brat shitheels you spoke of, but more an amalgam of the second and third generations with a milder slant - I'd say they end up quite silly when it comes to their own personal choices as they have the money cushion behind them that has never failed to protect them and at the same time they have that preoccupation with the wealth and standing that they're constantly surrounded by.
This is, of course, assuming that the parents spoiled the children along the way and didn't exercise enough restraint or impart enough of their experiences when life was pre-wealth, but then that seems to be a pretty common happenstance. I think it becomes very difficult to combat a change of mindset once you become wealthier, as your social standing changes, your attitudes towards your buying power changes, other people's impressions change, and so on.
SD on 8/11/2006 at 02:45
Quote Posted by Thief13x
I KNOW SMALL LETTERS CAN BE HARD TO READ
:rolleyes:
Renegen on 8/11/2006 at 04:16
Yeah it seems something like it is true, I call it the "Stalin principle". His children were bums while he was successful, but his success didn't come from any genetic traits. You can kinda see that in some professions. I don't know where Scots comes from, I don't want to comment too much on why the 2nd generation doesn't have the same ability to make money. But you know, some families do transfer their ability very well. I keep thinking of the ancient civilizations, the Barca family had it all for several generations. And with hedge funds and the whole 'capital preservation'(taken from the Credit Suisse commercials) philosophy a lot of families are able to remain rich.
Scots Taffer on 8/11/2006 at 04:20
The discussion of wealthy families producing lazy offspring was only a direct contrapositive of the intelligent offspring from a poor family that I'd also offered. It wasn't about the continued transferance of wealth, I was discussing more the general level-headedness of the continuing generations.
When I say I've seen it in my family, I don't mean my immediate family but extended, and in any case, everything I was speaking of was not intended as a blanket generalisation.
The "Stalin Principle"?
Renegen on 8/11/2006 at 04:23
His children were serious bums.
Rug Burn Junky on 8/11/2006 at 04:34
Quote Posted by Scots_Taffer
Their children, having had the best provided for them and never really having had to experience a lack for something they want, don't have a proper understanding of where money comes from and how one gets any, this is worsened if they are in a protected-bubble of rich kids because then the microcosm becomes so much more intense. As no one outside their social circle has ever had to slum it or their family has never been short on money, the concept of how difficult it can be to make ends meet is completely alien to them which means that they are ultimately naive to real life economics.
This is more or less spot on what he described the second generation to be. My description was rather lacking, but "quirky" was sort of meant to encompass the "naive to real life economics" and "decent" was meant not as a positive, but to minimize the term understanding. Wait til you see your next generation. ;)
Sadly, I don't have the benefit of uber rich parents, and I'm already a spendthrift of the second generation sort.
Scots Taffer on 8/11/2006 at 04:37
Hahaha oh fuck
TheGreatGodPan on 8/11/2006 at 21:34
RBJ, that phenomenom is usually referred to as "The Idiot Grandson". Francis Galton would likely attribute it to (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean) regression to the mean.
If anyone wasn't around or wants a refresher of what I said earlier on the return of patriarchy, it was (
http://ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1414408&highlight=#post1414408) here although unfortunately the first link now requires payment and is just a preview and the second no longer exists.
Basically, birth control/family planning can be considered a major drain on fitness. The frequency of people who do not use it (because they are pro-natalist like Hasidics, they react badly to whatever material condoms are made out of and whatever composes birth control pills and shots, or they are just too dim to even consider the option) should be expected to rise with time (culture shifts faster than genes, so the first possibility I listed has had the most visible impact so far). Since the original ROP article isn't available, I guess I'll have to settle for linking to (
http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html#miller) this answer to the Edge.org question "What's your dangerous idea" from (
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002103.html) Geoffrey Miller.
Agent Monkeysee on 8/11/2006 at 22:51
That's highly dubious. The connection between your genetics and your predeliction for using birth control is non-existent. It relies on the same fallacy as the "poor outbreeding the rich". It assumes that there's some genetic line unique to the poor and that this line affects what social and cultural behaviors they latch on to.
It also assumes a rise in the fitness of poor children causes a lowering of fitness of middle-class and the rich. This clearly isn't true, otherwise the poor would have muscled out the upper classes generations ago. The mere fact that poor people, as an economic class, have more children implies nothing about the future fitness of those children, their economic class, or their breeding decisions.
Seriously, people, the poor of today are not the same poor as your grandparents. Economic mobility is far more fluid than breeding patterns in any Western nation. Let's all say it together: Economics != Evolution!
TheGreatGodPan on 9/11/2006 at 19:05
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
That's highly dubious. The connection between your genetics and your predeliction for using birth control is non-existent. It relies on the same fallacy as the "poor outbreeding the rich". It assumes that there's some genetic line unique to the poor and that this line affects what social and cultural behaviors they latch on to.
It also assumes a rise in the fitness of poor children causes a lowering of fitness of middle-class and the rich. This clearly isn't true, otherwise the poor would have muscled out the upper classes generations ago. The mere fact that poor people, as an economic class, have more children implies nothing about the future fitness of those children, their economic class, or their breeding decisions.
Seriously, people, the poor of today are not the same poor as your grandparents. Economic mobility is far more fluid than breeding patterns in any Western nation. Let's all say it together: Economics != Evolution!
You are right that there is an incredible amount of mobility over a lifetime in both income and wealth, but I'm not focusing on wealth. Mormons are fairly well off in terms of income but still rather pro-natalist. I also don't assume that raising the fitness of some people automatically lowers it for others. What I am saying is that there is a relatively new phenomenom that has popped up (birth control/family planning when it is very feasible to support more children) that selection has not had time to adapt to, but it surely will in the long run. I already doubt that "The connection between your genetics and your predeliction for using birth control is non-existent", so I would bet that if there was a study on twins that were adopted, the correlation between decisions to use birth control, the number of children over lifetime and age at which children are had will be higher for identical than fraternal twins. The difference will likely be small, and dwarfed by cultural factors currently, but over time genes that predispose toward a higher expected number of viable children will be selected for. The ability to fly seems extraordinarily far off for wingless and featherless animals, but it nevertheless appeared due to small advantages selected for over time.
