I'll defend the more boringly obvious answer of "privilege".
My points:
Although some women get mentioned here, they are outnumbered. Why didn't one of their sisters become a general in the British or Indian army? Was that genetic, obviously not since they wouldn't even have got the chance to find out. Instead, marrying another famous person is listed as one of their achievements. The ones that do make the list have tales of the many obstacles they overcame.
More widely, I read a history of science and it was remarkable how often "rich, idle guy devotes all his time to the newly emerging science and buys all the new toys" re-occurs as a story. Does that mean they were dumb, no, but they clearly were in the right time and place with the right situation compared with other human beings on the planet at the time.
Similarly Bill Gates, was he the smartest natural computer guy in the world at that time, or from the big set of people with the genes for IQ was he the one that was a white, American, male who went to a private school with early access to a computer and who had a mom that has a fellow board member that was on the board of IBM. Any one of which would have been a handicap to his dramatic success if it hadn't been true.
Obviously the latter.
A further recent trend, pop stars all having a background of family wealth and connections. Genetics? No.
Basically, meritocracy is a story we tell ourselves, because reality is harsh. And most of the genetic nonsense derives straight from that.
> You just get one chance, she said. You live for maybe seventy years, and if you’re lucky you get one chance.
> Think of all the natural skiers who are born in deserts. Think of all the genius blacksmiths who were born hundreds of years before anyone invented the horse. All the skills that are never used. All the wasted chances. -- Pratchett
My points:
Although some women get mentioned here, they are outnumbered. Why didn't one of their sisters become a general in the British or Indian army? Was that genetic, obviously not since they wouldn't even have got the chance to find out. Instead, marrying another famous person is listed as one of their achievements. The ones that do make the list have tales of the many obstacles they overcame.
More widely, I read a history of science and it was remarkable how often "rich, idle guy devotes all his time to the newly emerging science and buys all the new toys" re-occurs as a story. Does that mean they were dumb, no, but they clearly were in the right time and place with the right situation compared with other human beings on the planet at the time.
Similarly Bill Gates, was he the smartest natural computer guy in the world at that time, or from the big set of people with the genes for IQ was he the one that was a white, American, male who went to a private school with early access to a computer and who had a mom that has a fellow board member that was on the board of IBM. Any one of which would have been a handicap to his dramatic success if it hadn't been true.
Obviously the latter.
A further recent trend, pop stars all having a background of family wealth and connections. Genetics? No.
Basically, meritocracy is a story we tell ourselves, because reality is harsh. And most of the genetic nonsense derives straight from that.
> You just get one chance, she said. You live for maybe seventy years, and if you’re lucky you get one chance.
> Think of all the natural skiers who are born in deserts. Think of all the genius blacksmiths who were born hundreds of years before anyone invented the horse. All the skills that are never used. All the wasted chances. -- Pratchett