I can see this group being the most influential lobby group on the bankruptcy legislation. Given they have the most to loss, plenty of contacts, and a knowledge of how the system works/how to influence it, I can see the new laws being… not what is just and fair.
In practice, There is no difference between being poor and smart and poor and of average intelligence if there is no way to demonstrate that you are actually smart through high achievement in education.
The barriers to a good education are higher in the US.
The difference is that if there are poor smart people, then you have some hope of changing the system to make it more equitable. If only the rich are smart, then there’s no point in trying. You’d be better off introducing some eugenic policies to exterminate the poor imbeciles – an idea that has been floated in several different forms since the 19th century.
National Geographic had an article this month which said research on identical twins who grew up apart suggests that intelligence is to an extent hereditary (possibly as much as 75%). It even referenced the eugenics argument.
So it mightn’t be an entirely unbelievable comment.
It is my understanding that nutition plays a role in how well (and intelligently) children develop. And if you have the money to spend on a sending young children to Montesorri that could make a difference also. So its entirely believable (to me) that children of rich parents are smarter that the children of poor people.
This reminds me of pub talk where a friend of mine declared his theory of the super-traveller.
He attested that inter-marraige, hard living, a rapid generational turnover, greater infant mortality and lower life expectancy should accelerate the natural selection process to produce a near industricible member of Ireland’s travelling community with emergent super-human abilities and strengths to withstand and thrive in a near indestrucible fashion.
Of course that was just drunk talk and not published in a national newspaper, which means you really aren’t meant to take it seriouslty, even if it does make about as much sense.
I think the single biggest input factor that is being ignored is the influence of money on the output response. But that wouldn’t play well to a target audience who might like to be
told, “You’re wealthy because you’re better.”
In order to refute the original theory I also offer the example of the House of Hapsburg.
By and large, smart can make rich, but rich does not necessarily make smart - as evidenced from inherited businesses which have a very high failure rate.
Regarding the super-travellers, surely the inter-marriage crucifies their genetic pool, thereby preventing their ‘smarts’ from evolving upwards ?
Also, if they fail to adequately interact with the rest of society, the use of their ‘smarts’ will just be restricted to their own enviornment and consequently have very limited results.
Incidentally, some time back I went out with a girl who was part-gypsy (her grandmother).
My ex’s include 2 doctors, a lawyer and accountant, but this girl was in a league of her own when it came to brains.
Shockingly intelligent, she attributed it to the gypsy side of her family.
So maybe there is something to his theory.
That is absolute true and the interesting part is that the crucial window of opportunity is from conception to two years old. If a foetus/child is undernourished/malnourished during that period, no amount of healthy eating in later life can reverse the long term cognitive, developmental and physical damage. Google ‘Maternal and Child Undernutrition Special Series’ in The Lancet. Fascinating stuff and as relevant to parts of the developed as the developing world. Child malnutrition is a growing problem in the First World and has inevitable negative consequences on the future levels of educational and social attainment of children from deprived backgrounds.