>>12794128What kinda schizo talk is this?
Claiming nepotism and social family relations is conspiratorial when we know 90% of them lose their wealth by the third generation, with plenty of examples from before "modem day rich families" from Twain, Strohs, Pulitzers, Hartfords, Vanderbilts, etc. All filthy rich families that lost it all.
The reason families like the Rockefeller are still relatively, but way less, wealthy isn't because they were "lucky" (aka magic) but because they invest wisely, manage their risks. Something I wouldn't expect a leftist to understand and rather like you did here, fall back to conspiracy superstitious talk.
>It has nothing to do with genetics, it has to do with family social relationships.You're going into schizo assumptions of nepotism and family relations when the paper says otherwise.
I might as well plug Jews and you'd sound like a poltard.
We know couples marry others with similar genetics in general.
You'd expect in a highly nepotistic and "keep in the family" attitude towards money, people would marry their cousins which will keep the wealth in, but guess what? Marital assortment correlation with social outcome was lower in societies where people were married to random cousins.
If we let people loose to pick their partners, this would be way different:
>As predicted, couples showed significant similarity for some IQ variables.>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0191886985901400>Genetic evidence of assortative mating in humans>https://blog.23andme.com/23andme-research/you-complete-me/Study linked. Spam filter borked.
This is genetic. People are attracted to people who are similar to them.
There is no magic spell with wealth, most families lost it, even nepotism loses it, rather just the smarties know how to manage it and teach their kids how to as well and marry people like them, and for dumbasses like you, it would obviously look like magic. Even Isaac Newton lost his wealth on bad investments.
