High merit is somewhat ill-defined, initially as "talent and hard work," but eventually as increased socio-economic status and educational achievement, with the assumption that this would be reflected more in a capitalist society. The study uses single nucleotide polymorphism similarities to determine whether individuals are genetically more similar, with the assumption that a group of higher merit people would be more similar than a group of lower merit people. These scored polymorphism studies are popular these days, although there is little evidence that any particular polymorphism conveys any "merit" or anything similar. The unproven assumption, as I understand it, is that the right accumulation of hundreds of these polymorphisms conveys "merit," ( as usual, ignoring the fact that if this were the case, generational heritability would be watered down to almost nothing).
The study claims that, by one measure, there is a statistically significant increase in genetic similarity amongst richer, more educated individuals who grew up after the fall of communism. The other measure was statically insignificant. Exactly what this genetic similarity might be, is apparently a matter for speculation. I suspect it is merely a statistical aberration, although even if true, it could be attributed to many other possible factors, such as the noted increase in migration to Estonia (new immigrants would be less genetically similar and less likely to have full economic and educational opportunities, increasing the genetic similarity of those at the top), but other explanations were barely considered.
There is a bit of a contradiction here, as well, when the authors describe the communist state as limiting advancement due to privilege and nepotism, since one would expect more genetic similarities amongst these closed groups, where privileged families would promote their meritless offspring, making the study a win-win, since had the results turned out the opposite, they could make the case that a more open opportunity for advancement would break up such genetic similarity.
Another issue that is lost on the authors is the malleability of "merit." Is it likely that there is some magical genetic constant that makes a good computer programmer, a good salesperson, a talented artist, a supervisor, a physical laborer, etc.? It seems quite doubtful on its face even if you accept the idea that merit is genetic (which I don't, of course), so doesn't that lend to the case that a more genetically homogenous group of individuals would be those communist wogs who worm their way to the top of every field regardless of talent. Thus, wouldn't genetic homogeneity be a sign that we are in less of a meritocracy? Truly, when you really examine the assumptions and biases made in a study like this, it becomes more absurd with each reading.
In any case, to their credit, the authors concede that "... no definite conclusion can be drawn. It will be necessary to replicate the present analysis using data from a different country that has gone through similar, abrupt social change." That is a tall order, with limited opportunities, but what will really happen is that the study will be read by few, accepted as some sort of truism and will likely never be replicated. That is the shell game of genetic "findings" that has been playing out for the past few decades. Crank out a study making claims about a gene or genetic link for this or that, with attempts to replicate it meeting with failure (if they are even attempted), then a new study comes out making similar claims about a different genetic link and so on...
Really, what we have here is a study that doesn't really show much of anything, but plays to the anti-communist sentiments of people. There is no specific gene that can be attributed in full or in part to "merit", or even IQ. The assumptions of the authors and most geneticists are that, at some point, such genes will be discovered. Using genome-wide polygenic scores is a way to claim that individuals have some genetic similarities, but it does not give any indication as to what that means.
Moreover, while the authors attempt to use some controls, I will suggest that a fully randomized control be used in such studies, meaning that all the individuals in the study be assigned to one of two groups at random, without regard to their age and the same type of analysis be done. I'm guessing that it will show some increased genetic similarity from one group over the other.
There is a bit of a contradiction here, as well, when the authors describe the communist state as limiting advancement due to privilege and nepotism, since one would expect more genetic similarities amongst these closed groups, where privileged families would promote their meritless offspring, making the study a win-win, since had the results turned out the opposite, they could make the case that a more open opportunity for advancement would break up such genetic similarity.
Another issue that is lost on the authors is the malleability of "merit." Is it likely that there is some magical genetic constant that makes a good computer programmer, a good salesperson, a talented artist, a supervisor, a physical laborer, etc.? It seems quite doubtful on its face even if you accept the idea that merit is genetic (which I don't, of course), so doesn't that lend to the case that a more genetically homogenous group of individuals would be those communist wogs who worm their way to the top of every field regardless of talent. Thus, wouldn't genetic homogeneity be a sign that we are in less of a meritocracy? Truly, when you really examine the assumptions and biases made in a study like this, it becomes more absurd with each reading.
In any case, to their credit, the authors concede that "... no definite conclusion can be drawn. It will be necessary to replicate the present analysis using data from a different country that has gone through similar, abrupt social change." That is a tall order, with limited opportunities, but what will really happen is that the study will be read by few, accepted as some sort of truism and will likely never be replicated. That is the shell game of genetic "findings" that has been playing out for the past few decades. Crank out a study making claims about a gene or genetic link for this or that, with attempts to replicate it meeting with failure (if they are even attempted), then a new study comes out making similar claims about a different genetic link and so on...
Really, what we have here is a study that doesn't really show much of anything, but plays to the anti-communist sentiments of people. There is no specific gene that can be attributed in full or in part to "merit", or even IQ. The assumptions of the authors and most geneticists are that, at some point, such genes will be discovered. Using genome-wide polygenic scores is a way to claim that individuals have some genetic similarities, but it does not give any indication as to what that means.
Moreover, while the authors attempt to use some controls, I will suggest that a fully randomized control be used in such studies, meaning that all the individuals in the study be assigned to one of two groups at random, without regard to their age and the same type of analysis be done. I'm guessing that it will show some increased genetic similarity from one group over the other.
No comments:
Post a Comment