manu15151513
09-16-2022, 05:20 AM
http://www.matthewckeller.com/16.Hatemi.et.al.2010.Nuc.fam.ajps.pdf, page 9; what is thought about women's rights is for 1% shared environmental (region, family, school, culture ...) and for 66% genetic (34% genetic in the study, but 40% of the variance is error of measure and this mainly mitigated the estimates of inheritance, but in the study it is separate but in a classic design this would be added to the inheritance, so since it is mainly inheritance we can say about 66% as an approximation: imagine a multiple choice test where the people tested after two months show great differences between the two tests, the probability that the random measurement error involved leads two twins to mark the same box among the 4 available is much lower than that they mark different boxes, this therefore swells in artificial way the measurement error and underestimates the inheritance);
Shared environment for what is thought about gay rights 10%, genetics according to the same reasoning 66% about
What people think about nuclear power, taxes, immigration and so on consistently shows the same results.
Furthermore, the study calculated the measurement error over the distance of two years, so surely the variance of the measurement error would increase a lot if more accurate measurements of all life were obtained, and this certainly for the aforementioned reasoning would lead to inheritance from 66% to almost 100% and the shared environment of 10% for what they think of gay rights to 0% whereas twin studies show that the environment is essentially transient.
Bottom Line: If you REALLY understand what I said, you understand that studies perfectly indicate that political views are fully genetic and not environmental at all.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3592970/#:~:text=This%20estimator%20suggests%20that%20heri tability,heritable%20than%20single%2Dyear%20income .
Of the many studies conducted on income inheritance, this one has the best measures
Going down you will find a box, and the correlation goes from 40% for one year to 62% for identical twins in this study conducted in Sweden by income 1 years on 20 years income, but the inheritance estimates are comparable to the US which is at the top for greater internal inequality (https: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_inequality#/media/File:Gini_Coefficient_of_Wealth_Inequality_source. png,https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/38881/HECER_DP364.pdf), therefore we can expect an inheritance for the income of the twenty years like Sweden. However, the lifetime income is well over twenty years, considering the average working age of about forty years and the proportionality of the increase per year reported we can expect an inheritance of over 70% for income. However https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/38881/HECER_DP364.pdf, page 27 reports a shared environment of only 9% in the United States, so the environment in income is simply due to luck, not due to the family he comes from and the area you grew up in. However, the assortative mating was not controlled in these studies, so in reality the shared environment is 0% and that 9% is an overestimate of the similarity of fraternal twins compared to identical twins due to selective mating.
Bottom line: in one of the absolute countries with the greatest internal variability in wealth, the shared environment counts zero percent SPLIT, genetics over 70% and the rest is luck and chance.
Considering a shared environmental impact of zero split on the most unequal country in the world (almost) and an almost total inheritance, it must be recognized that it is totally absurd to expect that globally a change of course and therefore the difference between average incomes in the world is almost entirely genetic / racial and not due to growing up there. And considering this shared environmental impact of zero split on the most unequal country in the world and an almost total inheritance, as well as the same discourse with the views on women's rights and gays, it is inevitable to conclude that people were poorer a century ago for due to a genetics different from today's people due to an extremely high inbreeding, and therefore to many more recessive alleles than today. This explains the generational differences in income and mentality.
You cannot criticize, the reality is this and fully demonstrated. A Moroccan raised in Japan adopted at birth by a Japanese family would have the income of morocco over the course of his life and a Japanese raised in morocco adopted at birth would have the high Japanese income in morocco. An Englishman raised in Saudi Arabs would have the exact same mindset about women, gays and democracy that he would have in England and an adopted Saudi Arab. adopted at birth by an English family in England, he would have the exact same mindset on such matters that he would have had if raised by Saudi Arabs in Saudi Arabia. Ditto for the generational differences. If a twentieth-century American were raised today in a typical American family today, they would have an EXTREMELY lower lifetime income than the average American today and would have the same mindset about gays, women, and segregation that people had in the twentieth century.
This is not a theory, but a fact.
Shared environment for what is thought about gay rights 10%, genetics according to the same reasoning 66% about
What people think about nuclear power, taxes, immigration and so on consistently shows the same results.
Furthermore, the study calculated the measurement error over the distance of two years, so surely the variance of the measurement error would increase a lot if more accurate measurements of all life were obtained, and this certainly for the aforementioned reasoning would lead to inheritance from 66% to almost 100% and the shared environment of 10% for what they think of gay rights to 0% whereas twin studies show that the environment is essentially transient.
Bottom Line: If you REALLY understand what I said, you understand that studies perfectly indicate that political views are fully genetic and not environmental at all.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3592970/#:~:text=This%20estimator%20suggests%20that%20heri tability,heritable%20than%20single%2Dyear%20income .
Of the many studies conducted on income inheritance, this one has the best measures
Going down you will find a box, and the correlation goes from 40% for one year to 62% for identical twins in this study conducted in Sweden by income 1 years on 20 years income, but the inheritance estimates are comparable to the US which is at the top for greater internal inequality (https: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_inequality#/media/File:Gini_Coefficient_of_Wealth_Inequality_source. png,https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/38881/HECER_DP364.pdf), therefore we can expect an inheritance for the income of the twenty years like Sweden. However, the lifetime income is well over twenty years, considering the average working age of about forty years and the proportionality of the increase per year reported we can expect an inheritance of over 70% for income. However https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/38881/HECER_DP364.pdf, page 27 reports a shared environment of only 9% in the United States, so the environment in income is simply due to luck, not due to the family he comes from and the area you grew up in. However, the assortative mating was not controlled in these studies, so in reality the shared environment is 0% and that 9% is an overestimate of the similarity of fraternal twins compared to identical twins due to selective mating.
Bottom line: in one of the absolute countries with the greatest internal variability in wealth, the shared environment counts zero percent SPLIT, genetics over 70% and the rest is luck and chance.
Considering a shared environmental impact of zero split on the most unequal country in the world (almost) and an almost total inheritance, it must be recognized that it is totally absurd to expect that globally a change of course and therefore the difference between average incomes in the world is almost entirely genetic / racial and not due to growing up there. And considering this shared environmental impact of zero split on the most unequal country in the world and an almost total inheritance, as well as the same discourse with the views on women's rights and gays, it is inevitable to conclude that people were poorer a century ago for due to a genetics different from today's people due to an extremely high inbreeding, and therefore to many more recessive alleles than today. This explains the generational differences in income and mentality.
You cannot criticize, the reality is this and fully demonstrated. A Moroccan raised in Japan adopted at birth by a Japanese family would have the income of morocco over the course of his life and a Japanese raised in morocco adopted at birth would have the high Japanese income in morocco. An Englishman raised in Saudi Arabs would have the exact same mindset about women, gays and democracy that he would have in England and an adopted Saudi Arab. adopted at birth by an English family in England, he would have the exact same mindset on such matters that he would have had if raised by Saudi Arabs in Saudi Arabia. Ditto for the generational differences. If a twentieth-century American were raised today in a typical American family today, they would have an EXTREMELY lower lifetime income than the average American today and would have the same mindset about gays, women, and segregation that people had in the twentieth century.
This is not a theory, but a fact.