Social mobility dumbs down the lower classes...........

Post Reply New Topic

I don't think the original poster's use of the word "pedigree" implies that.

The term "inferior pedigree" was used in the original post to describe the situation with no social mobility, such as was traditionally the case in Europe. In that situation, one's pedigree might include the fact that one's parents and grandparents all went to a prestigious university like Oxford, or on the other hand that one came from a family of common laborers, or in older times, serfs. It would have been unlikely to have represented genetic separation, if for no other reason than that upper class men often kept mistresses in lower classes.

In the situation with social mobility, the original poster is saying that pedigree - which, again, I don't see any indication he assumes is genetic - is ignored, with people rising to the level supported by their capabilities.


That's not what the word "pedigree" normally means. In Massachusetts, for example, upper class whites are no doubt genetically the same as lower class whites, but they are distinguished by pedigrees that feature ancestors with degrees from Harvard or the last name "Kennedy". "Pedigree" refers only to recent ancestry, not genetic ancestry, which is much more deeply rooted.


I think access to education is part of what's involved in having social mobility.

oops I didnt read carefully, he did mean the 'pedigree' of the STRATIFIED societies, not America. you are correct sir.

I do agree with what the original poster wrote though. The best, brightest and most determined from the lower classes do dig themselves out. For example my father had no 'pedigree' to speak off and now he is one of most respected dentists in his field on the west coast of America. HIS father didnt even get past 8th grade and barely provided a roof and education for his wife and kids...Yet with hard work and dedication my father earned his way into college, PHD and his own business. its a good example of exactly what the op is talking about. a lot of my fam is poor and trashy (but nice people in their own way)

"pedigree" is a dated term for genetic traits from family line. I've seen it used in the context of human Eugenics before. Its kind of a dated term outside of dog breeding. Now whether or not the author intended the term to mean what I thought it to mean, I'm not saying genes don't have anything to do with intelligence, but environment also plays a lot into it too. Honestly, I'm more concerned about what I can do as an individual to improve myself than what I have no control over. That's why I'm kind of edgy when people veer into territory that implies an overly deterministic view of genetics.

Now that I've reread it, I see that, by pedigree, he purely meant background or family history. They may have been smart and determined, but because they didn't have any family connections and they were repressed culturally, they couldn't get their foot in the door.

not everybody has the wherwithal to "jerk themselves up by their own bootstraps" - opportunity is worthless without ability. it is bad precisely because you are saying that rather than being one's brother's keeper, you'd rather that every man be strictly for himself. ayn rand's evil "virtue of selfishness" lives on.

I completely agree that environmental factors are more important than genes with respect to intelligence and ability. In the context of the original post and "slums" - whether they be trailer parks or inner cities, that suggests we should encourage people to work their way out when they can, and focus on helping the children there develop their intelligence and ability.

The great irony of you saying this is that all the smart people don't breed enough at all, i.e. they are so clever they don't breed at all or below replacement.

The human race is just one big fail most of the time.

Just like traditionally stratified societies dumbed down the upper classes because competition was not meritocratic.

I agree.

I am my brother's keeper.

Other people I couldn't care less for.

If I went to help other people, they would become dependent of my help and thus become unable to help themselves and I'd in fact harm them.

Who says it is their duty to sacrifice their life to help others who probably don't want to be helped?

What if some white guy was born in a Redneck, ignorant, West Virginia mining town full of drunks and losers?

Should he stay there to "fight for the cause"? or should he say "to hell with it" and move to Los Angeles to make a better life for himself?