11 ms·

Intercourse and Intelligence

52 points by pwnstigator 17y ago

tokenadult 17y ago
I asked my wife of twenty-six years, the mother of our four children, what she thought of this link, and she commented that maybe the link just shows that IQ and intelligence are not quite the same thing. It is paradoxical to suppose that high intelligence people might have less reproductive success than average intelligence people, but it's not too far of a stretch to suppose that IQ tests fail to capture all of the intelligent behavior necessary to enjoy reproductive success. An older but much more thorough source on some of the same issues is http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Genes-Success-Scientists-Statistics/dp/0387982345 http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Genes-Success-Scientists-... with some very good discussions of differential rates of reproduction by IQ score.
- nostrademons 17y ago
  Why is it paradoxical to suppose that high intelligence people might have less reproductive success than average intelligence people?
  - TeHCrAzY 17y ago
    Seems that it should provide some selection bias, as the more intelligent you are, the more likely you will have a good idea and survive longer/provide better for your family etc.
    - UncleOxidant 17y ago
      Perhaps, but in times past physical strength was probably as much or more important than intelligence. Note that the least intelligent also have less opportunities to pass on their genes. It would seem that there's a sweet spot where a mix of intelligence and strength is most favored(note the testosterone hypothesis in the article). Now, however, intelligence is much more important to success. How long will it take for evolution to smile on those with higher IQs such that potential mates find intelligence to be the most attractive trait?
  - pwnstigator 17y ago
    I don't think it's paradoxical. There's a reason "smart genes" didn't proliferate throughout the human race, giving us all (the genetic potential for, at the least) 150+ IQs. That reason is that they're a reproductive drag.
- mnemonicsloth 17y ago
  It is paradoxical to suppose that high intelligence people might have less reproductive success Maybe you mean counterintuitive? Here is one plausible argument: "Reproductive success" depends first on making other people like you and second on taking very good care of your children. It's hard to see how deep analytical insight would make either task much easier, especially given that so much of sex and child-rearing runs on simple, emotional scripts. On the other hand, tautology is possible if you're prepared to argue that intelligence causes a person to be significantly more popular, likable, and conscientious, it's hard to imagine positive mental traits that wouldn't be due to intelligence. In that case, all you're saying is that "success is caused by the agglomeration of factors that collectively cause success."
  - tokenadult 17y ago
    Maybe you mean counterintuitive? Thank you for the suggestion on word choice. I hang around a lot with individual differences psychologists, so I'm used to hearing rather broad claims of what IQ ("psychometric intelligence") means. To some people, it is taken to mean general adaptive ability. But what would an organism adapt to if not overcoming challenges to reproducing, under selection pressure? But, yes, if what IQ tests estimate is something narrower than David Wechsler's claimed general ability to adapt to the environment, it is understandable that some high-IQ people never even get to first base in the biological task of reproduction.
    - mnemonicsloth 17y ago
      But what would an organism adapt to if not overcoming challenges to reproducing, under selection pressure? Our minds -- whose involuntary emotional reactions drive our behavior and impart to us many of our basic values -- are evolved. Evolution tinkers, reuses, never redesigns or reorganizes. So instead of pushing us toward the single, monolithic goal of having children, we experience constant nudging to do things that are conducive to reproductive success. Support yourself. Be well-liked. Have sex. Love your children. Achieve status. In slogan form: evolution's instrumental values are humanity's terminal values. So to answer your question, we act to make ourselves happy, and what makes us happy approximates what is good for the next generation. There are gaps, though. Some people to focus on their careers to the exclusion of family, and contraception doesn't engender the same reaction as eating rancid meat. I tend to think this is a good thing, but I'm status-quo biased and my values are largely a product of the current arrangement, so that's unsurprising.
ray_wang 17y ago
An article the states something that we all know. I think the smartest people knows when to act dumb. As a comp sci master student who also go out on weekends sometime to clubs, I have to say that women are not turned on by the occupation of a programmer.
- onewland 17y ago
  I don't think they're turned on by room-temperature IQ construction workers (not saying they all are) for their occupation either. Maybe the problem here is that you're talking about your occupation. If you meet a secretary or a doctor in a bar, do you want to hear her rattle on about her daily routine? This could be related to the problems very intelligent people have getting laid. Their interests are less accessible and more focused, and so their conversations are more boring to people who don't share those interests. Whereas everybody but the stupidest people can easily follow along in a reality TV discussion.
  - astine 17y ago
    A doctor can casually drop something into the conversation about all of the lives he's saved or kids he's helped and instantly score points. That new webserver is slightly less enthralling to the uninitiated. It's easier to turn some kinds of work into an interesting story than others.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
    - mixmax 17y ago
      I think that's a case of "the grass is greener on the other side" You can just as easily come up with fun stories, things you've done, etc. as a programmer as a doctor. - Next time you're on facebook try pressing up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, b, a, enter and see what happens. No I won't tell you but it's fun. If you can't remember it here's my number so you can text me and ask - Yeah today I've had more than half a million people come through computers I run. Without me they would be in serious trouble. Pretty wild huh? - I've helped so many kids with computers you wouldn't believe it. A little thick maybe, but you get the point :-)
fnid 17y ago
There are sooooo many reasons why these numbers may look like this. You may consider it is because smart people are unattractive, or you could consider it that smart people are smart enough to know it isn't a good idea to have sex when you are fifteen.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- JeremyChase 17y ago
  I think the smartest people are those who discovered condoms and birth control at 15.
  - pwnstigator 17y ago
    Do you really think pregnancy is the only reason why 15-year-olds shouldn't be having sex?
    - roc 17y ago
      Pregnancy and disease. Why do you think they shouldn't?
      - pwnstigator 17y ago
        Emotional and psychological complications, sometimes long-lasting. Early loss-of-virginity age, which many people still care about in a marriage partner. Empirically, people who lose their virginity early (< 18) tend to be hypersexual as adults.
        deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
caryme 17y ago
Two mentions of the "opposite sex" make me wonder how heterocentric this study was. I haven't investigated his source studies and the link to the Counterpoint survey is broken. If the wording of the original survey asks questions specifically related to kissing, holding hands with, and having sex with members of the opposite sex, this study could fail to consider the sexual activity of intelligent homosexual college students which could also provide some interesting results.
chaostheory 17y ago
Nothing new - even for fruit flies http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4200-cleverness-may-carry-survival-costs.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4200-cleverness-may-ca...
- adamsmith 17y ago
  Seems unrelated. The New Scientist article doesn't describe mate selection or reproduction. In fact, it seems like they just bred fruit flies that over emphasize their past observations. They didn't make "clever" fruit flies.
startingup 17y ago
I sense too much negativity and frustration on this thread. I can sympathize. I was exactly the same way at 24, a nerd who couldn't hold a conversation with the opposite sex, had rejection after rejection, and was pretty depressed about it too. I consciously decided to "improve" myself. Here are things I did: 1. Improved my wardrobe. Believe me, it makes a difference. 2. Consciously taught myself to listen, and ask questions that will lead to more conversation. 3. Consciously taught myself to gauge the level of interest of the other person. Move on if the other person isn't interested - as they say, there is always more fish in the ocean. 4. Push the envelope a little bit ... the man has to push - you have to ask for the phone number! And it is a good way to gauge interest. 5. Don't forget that some level of IQ compatibility is critical. Just as "they" don't want the nerd in you, may be some of the "airhead" types aren't great to be around for you either. Let me just say that I hit success after consciously doing it. It is like doing a start-up. Know your strengths and know how to compensate for your weaknesses - a superior IQ can help you figure out how to compensate :-)
billswift 17y ago
Anybody else notice how this relates to pg's essay "Why Nerds are Unpopular" (http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html)? Getting sex as a teen, like being popular, takes fairly dedicated effort, and more intelligent, especially nerdy, people have other things to spend time on.

52 points by pwnstigator 17y ago

I asked my wife of twenty-six years, the mother of our four children, what she thought of this link, and she commented that maybe the link just shows that IQ and intelligence are not quite the same thing. It is paradoxical to suppose that high intelligence people might have less reproductive success than average intelligence people, but it's not too far of a stretch to suppose that IQ tests fail to capture all of the intelligent behavior necessary to enjoy reproductive success. An older but much more thorough source on some of the same issues is http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Genes-Success-Scientists-Statistics/dp/0387982345 http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Genes-Success-Scientists-... with some very good discussions of differential rates of reproduction by IQ score.

nostrademons 17y ago
Why is it paradoxical to suppose that high intelligence people might have less reproductive success than average intelligence people?
- TeHCrAzY 17y ago
  Seems that it should provide some selection bias, as the more intelligent you are, the more likely you will have a good idea and survive longer/provide better for your family etc.
  - UncleOxidant 17y ago
    Perhaps, but in times past physical strength was probably as much or more important than intelligence. Note that the least intelligent also have less opportunities to pass on their genes. It would seem that there's a sweet spot where a mix of intelligence and strength is most favored(note the testosterone hypothesis in the article). Now, however, intelligence is much more important to success. How long will it take for evolution to smile on those with higher IQs such that potential mates find intelligence to be the most attractive trait?
- pwnstigator 17y ago
  I don't think it's paradoxical. There's a reason "smart genes" didn't proliferate throughout the human race, giving us all (the genetic potential for, at the least) 150+ IQs. That reason is that they're a reproductive drag.
mnemonicsloth 17y ago
It is paradoxical to suppose that high intelligence people might have less reproductive success Maybe you mean counterintuitive? Here is one plausible argument: "Reproductive success" depends first on making other people like you and second on taking very good care of your children. It's hard to see how deep analytical insight would make either task much easier, especially given that so much of sex and child-rearing runs on simple, emotional scripts. On the other hand, tautology is possible if you're prepared to argue that intelligence causes a person to be significantly more popular, likable, and conscientious, it's hard to imagine positive mental traits that wouldn't be due to intelligence. In that case, all you're saying is that "success is caused by the agglomeration of factors that collectively cause success."
- tokenadult 17y ago
  Maybe you mean counterintuitive? Thank you for the suggestion on word choice. I hang around a lot with individual differences psychologists, so I'm used to hearing rather broad claims of what IQ ("psychometric intelligence") means. To some people, it is taken to mean general adaptive ability. But what would an organism adapt to if not overcoming challenges to reproducing, under selection pressure? But, yes, if what IQ tests estimate is something narrower than David Wechsler's claimed general ability to adapt to the environment, it is understandable that some high-IQ people never even get to first base in the biological task of reproduction.
  - mnemonicsloth 17y ago
    But what would an organism adapt to if not overcoming challenges to reproducing, under selection pressure? Our minds -- whose involuntary emotional reactions drive our behavior and impart to us many of our basic values -- are evolved. Evolution tinkers, reuses, never redesigns or reorganizes. So instead of pushing us toward the single, monolithic goal of having children, we experience constant nudging to do things that are conducive to reproductive success. Support yourself. Be well-liked. Have sex. Love your children. Achieve status. In slogan form: evolution's instrumental values are humanity's terminal values. So to answer your question, we act to make ourselves happy, and what makes us happy approximates what is good for the next generation. There are gaps, though. Some people to focus on their careers to the exclusion of family, and contraception doesn't engender the same reaction as eating rancid meat. I tend to think this is a good thing, but I'm status-quo biased and my values are largely a product of the current arrangement, so that's unsurprising.

ray_wang 17y ago

An article the states something that we all know. I think the smartest people knows when to act dumb. As a comp sci master student who also go out on weekends sometime to clubs, I have to say that women are not turned on by the occupation of a programmer.

onewland 17y ago
I don't think they're turned on by room-temperature IQ construction workers (not saying they all are) for their occupation either. Maybe the problem here is that you're talking about your occupation. If you meet a secretary or a doctor in a bar, do you want to hear her rattle on about her daily routine? This could be related to the problems very intelligent people have getting laid. Their interests are less accessible and more focused, and so their conversations are more boring to people who don't share those interests. Whereas everybody but the stupidest people can easily follow along in a reality TV discussion.
- astine 17y ago
  A doctor can casually drop something into the conversation about all of the lives he's saved or kids he's helped and instantly score points. That new webserver is slightly less enthralling to the uninitiated. It's easier to turn some kinds of work into an interesting story than others.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - mixmax 17y ago
    I think that's a case of "the grass is greener on the other side" You can just as easily come up with fun stories, things you've done, etc. as a programmer as a doctor. - Next time you're on facebook try pressing up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, b, a, enter and see what happens. No I won't tell you but it's fun. If you can't remember it here's my number so you can text me and ask - Yeah today I've had more than half a million people come through computers I run. Without me they would be in serious trouble. Pretty wild huh? - I've helped so many kids with computers you wouldn't believe it. A little thick maybe, but you get the point :-)

fnid 17y ago

There are sooooo many reasons why these numbers may look like this. You may consider it is because smart people are unattractive, or you could consider it that smart people are smart enough to know it isn't a good idea to have sex when you are fifteen.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
JeremyChase 17y ago
I think the smartest people are those who discovered condoms and birth control at 15.
- pwnstigator 17y ago
  Do you really think pregnancy is the only reason why 15-year-olds shouldn't be having sex?
  - roc 17y ago
    Pregnancy and disease. Why do you think they shouldn't?
    - pwnstigator 17y ago
      Emotional and psychological complications, sometimes long-lasting. Early loss-of-virginity age, which many people still care about in a marriage partner. Empirically, people who lose their virginity early (< 18) tend to be hypersexual as adults.
      - deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]

caryme 17y ago

Two mentions of the "opposite sex" make me wonder how heterocentric this study was. I haven't investigated his source studies and the link to the Counterpoint survey is broken. If the wording of the original survey asks questions specifically related to kissing, holding hands with, and having sex with members of the opposite sex, this study could fail to consider the sexual activity of intelligent homosexual college students which could also provide some interesting results.

chaostheory 17y ago

Nothing new - even for fruit flies http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4200-cleverness-may-carry-survival-costs.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4200-cleverness-may-ca...

adamsmith 17y ago
Seems unrelated. The New Scientist article doesn't describe mate selection or reproduction. In fact, it seems like they just bred fruit flies that over emphasize their past observations. They didn't make "clever" fruit flies.

startingup 17y ago

I sense too much negativity and frustration on this thread. I can sympathize. I was exactly the same way at 24, a nerd who couldn't hold a conversation with the opposite sex, had rejection after rejection, and was pretty depressed about it too. I consciously decided to "improve" myself. Here are things I did: 1. Improved my wardrobe. Believe me, it makes a difference. 2. Consciously taught myself to listen, and ask questions that will lead to more conversation. 3. Consciously taught myself to gauge the level of interest of the other person. Move on if the other person isn't interested - as they say, there is always more fish in the ocean. 4. Push the envelope a little bit ... the man has to push - you have to ask for the phone number! And it is a good way to gauge interest. 5. Don't forget that some level of IQ compatibility is critical. Just as "they" don't want the nerd in you, may be some of the "airhead" types aren't great to be around for you either. Let me just say that I hit success after consciously doing it. It is like doing a start-up. Know your strengths and know how to compensate for your weaknesses - a superior IQ can help you figure out how to compensate :-)

billswift 17y ago

Anybody else notice how this relates to pg's essay "Why Nerds are Unpopular" (http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html)? Getting sex as a teen, like being popular, takes fairly dedicated effort, and more intelligent, especially nerdy, people have other things to spend time on.