Most high status people aren't very bright. Their ancestors were the sons and daughters of the ruling upper class, meaning landowners which essentially meant the biggest and most savage warriors who were rewarded with lands after 1066.
Once they have that land there is absolutely no need to work hard or try to better yourself or your offspring intellectually, what you really needed to do is stay in favour with the other robber barons and the king. So you inter marry with their offspring and spend your time hunting, wenching and sucking up to tthe monarach. Which is how some of my wife's family members managed to stay in the company of the King's and Queens of England from the 12th century right up until the 20th century.
Intelligence correlates with socioeconomic background as well as with socioeconomic status achieved and is about 0.8 heritable. SES is about 0.75 heritable across time due to a combination of inheritance and assortative mating.
Socieconomic background scores those who are compliant more highly than those who do not, that is clear by the weight it gives to employment in large organisations over small and those who work in professions over those who do not.
As for intelligence when are these IQ tests being taken? I've worked for several massive international companies and never heard of mass IQ testing at any of them. Or are exams being used to show intelligence, which again would show a bias to those who are "good Boys" and put the "right" answer down in their essays at school and university
that is mindboggling considering all wars, revolutions, beheadings and whatnot from french revolution to 1900s chaos hasnt fixed that bloodline... this gives whole new meaning to whole body suffers from dumb head, in country context... dumb ruling class makes whole country destitute.
I think your example is more anecdotal, rather than being the historical norm. Landowners had to have higher intelligence, to keep their lands operational and profitable. Of course, to curry favour with the Lords and Monarchs of yore as well. But navigating that structure of society would take tact, and intelligence. Of course, currently there are a lot of rich or high status people that are utter retards. But that is the sign of the times.
Also you are disregarding rulership changes, not just in the middle ages but during the renaissance and modern age as well, which would contribute to changes in land ownership, sometimes en masse. For example, recently landowners were uprooted by money-aristocracy which clearly is shown in genealogy.
There was very little intelligence in being a land owner between 1066 and 1900. "Rulership changes" were carried out by the land-owners, they decided they king wasn't doing well for them and ousted them. In the case of the civil war the tactic was always to have the son support Parliament while the Lord supported the Crown. This ensured continuity of ownership of the land whatever the result.
The land was run by a manager, you knew what yield to expect because technology hardly changed, nor did prices. You were self-sufficient in food, wood for building, staff (you got some local girls to work for a pittance plus food and lodging.
If you ran out of money you married someone with money. Ownership never changed "en masse" in the UK, that is simply false. Even after the Civil war .The only time land left a family was because they died out or some drunken idiot gambled all the money away
Most high status people aren't very bright. Their ancestors were the sons and daughters of the ruling upper class, meaning landowners which essentially meant the biggest and most savage warriors who were rewarded with lands after 1066.
Once they have that land there is absolutely no need to work hard or try to better yourself or your offspring intellectually, what you really needed to do is stay in favour with the other robber barons and the king. So you inter marry with their offspring and spend your time hunting, wenching and sucking up to tthe monarach. Which is how some of my wife's family members managed to stay in the company of the King's and Queens of England from the 12th century right up until the 20th century.
Intelligence correlates with socioeconomic background as well as with socioeconomic status achieved and is about 0.8 heritable. SES is about 0.75 heritable across time due to a combination of inheritance and assortative mating.
Socieconomic background scores those who are compliant more highly than those who do not, that is clear by the weight it gives to employment in large organisations over small and those who work in professions over those who do not.
As for intelligence when are these IQ tests being taken? I've worked for several massive international companies and never heard of mass IQ testing at any of them. Or are exams being used to show intelligence, which again would show a bias to those who are "good Boys" and put the "right" answer down in their essays at school and university
that is mindboggling considering all wars, revolutions, beheadings and whatnot from french revolution to 1900s chaos hasnt fixed that bloodline... this gives whole new meaning to whole body suffers from dumb head, in country context... dumb ruling class makes whole country destitute.
I think your example is more anecdotal, rather than being the historical norm. Landowners had to have higher intelligence, to keep their lands operational and profitable. Of course, to curry favour with the Lords and Monarchs of yore as well. But navigating that structure of society would take tact, and intelligence. Of course, currently there are a lot of rich or high status people that are utter retards. But that is the sign of the times.
Also you are disregarding rulership changes, not just in the middle ages but during the renaissance and modern age as well, which would contribute to changes in land ownership, sometimes en masse. For example, recently landowners were uprooted by money-aristocracy which clearly is shown in genealogy.
There was very little intelligence in being a land owner between 1066 and 1900. "Rulership changes" were carried out by the land-owners, they decided they king wasn't doing well for them and ousted them. In the case of the civil war the tactic was always to have the son support Parliament while the Lord supported the Crown. This ensured continuity of ownership of the land whatever the result.
The land was run by a manager, you knew what yield to expect because technology hardly changed, nor did prices. You were self-sufficient in food, wood for building, staff (you got some local girls to work for a pittance plus food and lodging.
If you ran out of money you married someone with money. Ownership never changed "en masse" in the UK, that is simply false. Even after the Civil war .The only time land left a family was because they died out or some drunken idiot gambled all the money away
How is this a "Free post" if I paid for a year subscription? Do I get a partial refund?
Pro tip for CEOS: I've been writing 'FREEPOST' on letters for years.
(I think it's not going to long at this rate before Ed breaks the '4 minute Pint' which most academics thought was simply impossible)