This remarkably thin personal blog post seems to be getting some traction, so I will remark (subject to editing in a moment) that the classic way to figure out "why is everyone like their parents?" was to do a study with a "genetically sensitive design." The ways to do that include studying identical (monozygotic, or "MZ") twins brought up in differing households, usually the result of adoptions splitting up twin pairs, sometimes from each parent of a twin pair bringing up one child after a divorce. More modern studies include designs such as studying the children of co-twins, that is studying first cousins who each have an uncle or aunt who is an MZ twin with one of their parents. There are many variations of studies like these.
Professor Eric Turkheimer, who I think is the current president of the Behavior Genetic Association (certainly he is very active in the association) does the scholarly community a favor by putting direct links to most of his papers on behavior genetics on his faculty webpage.
You can learn a lot about what makes children similar to--and different from--their parents by reading those papers. Another author who puts many of his papers on behavior genetics up on the Web is the younger researcher Lars Penke,
People thought the human body could not run a mile in less than four minutes until Roger Bannister did it in 1954. Once he had shown it was possible, two months later two other runners did it in the same race.
I've heard this a million times, but is it true? Nearly every athletic record from that era that was feasible to break has been broken since — usually multiple times — but we tend to ascribe those new records to better nutrition and medical/physiological/kinesiological progress [and steroids] rather than a psychological cause. Why would this one be any different?
And that's kind of how the rest of the article goes… a just-so story about why children of adults of low socioeconomic status often end up in low socioeconomic strata. It seems like lack of availability of similar educational opportunities (for one) at least warrants a mention.
But substitute any big feat done for the first time: iPhone taking control from the carriers, or Y Combinator being successful by funding a bunch a little companies. The point is it was harder to do because they were the first.
And educational opportunities are abundant in the US, regardless of where you live. The limiting factor is more likely you don't know how to access them. Which would change if you were around people who did.
Suppose we were to send in people to help everyone in the US to access all the educational opportunities that are available to them. This would still be a USA in which public schools are funded by regional property taxes — and thus a USA in which the schools in the poorest neighborhoods get a small fraction of the funding of the schools in the richest neighborhoods. Surely, then, average outcomes would still differ radically by region.
I think you've got a very good point at its core — people are heavily influenced by what they see around them; and, even keeping education expenditure distributed as-is, people can make a huge difference in others' lives by showing a good example and by passing on information on how to achieve in spite of circumstances. A limiting factor is lack of understanding on how to get ahead, yes — but, statistically, that seems likely to be only a small part of the story.
Also, you are already rich without doing a damn thing. The post seems to ignore this fine point.