11 ms·

Older fathers have 'geekier sons'

187 points by funkylexoo 9y ago

TallGuyShort 9y ago
I don't see a link to this actual study, only the TEDS study (was it actually parts of the TEDS study, or just using the same data?) But my first question is if they've considered if really the correlation is coming from closely related variables other than just age: - Father's who start a family later vs father's who start a family early but have additional children later. - Children who are more likely to have multiple older siblings.
- manyoso 9y ago
  The first one is directly addressed in this article. Others that hint at correlation are also discussed.
rocktronica 9y ago
Sure seems like correlation to me. Older fathers are more likely to have established careers, establishing higher socioeconomic status, affording a lifestyle that engenders "geekiness".
- baybal2 9y ago
  At least in Russia, I observed an opposite with women. All women of my generation I knew who were into thing like engineering did settle down in early twenties. Russia is a tought life country. A decision to start a family when you are still in your prime may make more sense there.
  - klipt 9y ago
    Engineering is mostly male, so it's easier for female engineers to find spouses from among their classmates/coworkers (and harder for male engineers).
- notadoc 9y ago
  Plus the tendency towards later parenthood for those focused on achieving a higher education and/or advanced career. If someone has a "geekier" career path or educational background, they're almost certainly more likely to have geekier children.
  - mattmanser 9y ago
    Shouldn't they control for that? Otherwise it's simply correlation rather than causation.
    - MikeTheGreat 9y ago
      I don't think that controlling for variables can produce a conclusion of causation. (I'm posting half because I think this is correct, and half because I'd love to hear someone more knowledgeable about statistics confirm or deny this :) ) I think that controlling for variables means that you've tried to reduce the impact of other variables on the two that you're interested in. From Wikipedia: "In statistics, controlling for a variable is the attempt to reduce the effect of confounding variables on an observational study. It means that when looking at the effect of one variable, all other variable predictors are held constant." [1] If you could control for all other variables then you'd know how much of a connection between the two variables that you're looking at. I think this doesn't guarantee causation, though - you'd need to do experiments where you adjust the independent variable and then verify that the dependent variable changes the way you're proposing it should. At least, I think that's how it works. Anyone else want to chime in? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlling_for_a_variable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlling_for_a_variable
      - kcanini 9y ago
        Yes, you're right. To guarantee causation, you need to either directly manipulate the variable, or control for every other variable in the universe (impossible). The more extraneous variables you control for, though, the more evidence you have for causation.
- olewhalehunter 9y ago
  https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/study-ties-dad%E2%80%99s-age-risk-autism-other-mental-disorders-kids https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/study-ties... "In the study population, advancing paternal age was associated with increased risk of some psychiatric disorders (eg, autism..."
  - jxramos 9y ago
    I remember a Stanford professor dived into this advanced age gamete suboptimality and stressed to everyone the compromises folks take in delaying past prime biological stages. He showed some time profiles of the diminishing chances for implantation, genetic disorders, etc. It was really palpable because you could sense he was a bit off balance having to present this sort of news to a bunch of young folks with the fountain of youth in their back pockets. The classmates were pretty much silent throughout the delivery. It got me to start thinking about biological optimum and I easily realized it was in the 20s as one would expect. All nighters were a piece of cake, probably to serve the care of an infant waking every 2 hours into the early hours of the night. Another piece of easily perceived evidence was the sheer force of the libido at that age and just how attractive women are in their peak. Lots of conspiring biology to contemplate teleologically.
    - musha68k 9y ago
      I feel stuff like this needs to be taken into account more consciously. It probably wouldn't have changed the decisions I made but still.. Meg Jay writes more about the practical implications of potentially delaying common life goals in "The Defining Decade" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13523061-the-defining-decade https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13523061-the-defining-de...
  - wbl 9y ago
    Apparently this is due to autistics taking longer to find mates, rather than mutation damage.
    - taneq 9y ago
- samirillian 9y ago
  It would also seem that they're less likely to play sports with their children. I wonder if there's a way to isolate athleticism from geekiness.
  - magic_beans 9y ago
    Plenty of men with single mothers* learn to play sports just fine (see many NBA and NFL players). *This is not to say that women don't play sports with their sons, but to say that it's silly to assume that all young fathers play sports with their sons.
    - Retric 9y ago
      All is not necessary for statistical correlations.
    - imatworkyo 9y ago
      that might be comparing two different things. In a single parent household (which I'm sure is heavily swayed towards single mothers) kids may be out playing with other kids. In families with older fathers, [assuming] there is a higher percentage of dual parenting ... which could mean more attention at home = less time playing sports with the neighborhood kids
    - awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
      Having a single mother would means kids are by themselves and playing with neighborhood kids. Having an older father means being at home more.
    - mmmpop 9y ago
      > Plenty of men with single mothers* learn to play sports just fine (see many NBA and NFL players). True but I'd bet that many of these men came from urban areas where the community had services in place for younger people to find older mentors, and generally stay out of trouble. I'm from eastern Kentucky originally and was lucky to have a fantastic stepfather, but I watched a lot of kids grow up with not much support past their single parent of either gender, and only a few of those I knew made it to 18 going anywhere near the correct trajectory. Outside of churches, there wasn't a lot of taxpayer-funded support for kids with single parents as it was probably a "moral" issue to the local politicians who still find the idea of a single parent family abhorrent and prefer to ignore it.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- cnnsucks 9y ago
  This could be down to older fathers having more basements, garages and tools. There are fewer degrees of freedom when you live in a drywall and carpet apartment.
- awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
  That could be true, but older fathers also have more defective genes, are less able to play with their children, etc. The children are just genetically "weaker", have more physical issues and participate in far less physical activity because their father is so old. This is anecdotal evidence but one of my friends had a very old dad. He had issues which forced him to wear bifocals and hence he didn't participate in sports. And his father was 60 when he was conceived so his dad didn't play catch with him or get him to try out for little league or play basketball with him. So instead, he stayed home mostly and used the computer and got into "geeky" stuff. The father's other children he had when he was younger are all very active, athletic, etc and none of them have to wear bifocals, etc. I got into sports because my dad played catch with me and encouraged me to play sports because my dad wasn't old when he had me. On the one hand, older fathers will be more established, but on the other hand, they will have more defective genes and less active/physical.
  - ouid 9y ago
    What do you mean by "defective genes"?
    - zhemao 9y ago
      Genetic mutations. As you get older, you accumulate more genetic damage, which can be passed on to children. It's fairly well-studied that children of older parents are more susceptible to genetic disorders.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        But even at fairly old ages, the levels are very low. Yes, they are several multiples of the rates at younger ages, but the base rates are also very, very low. So, it's a real issue, but it's also very was to percieved it as much bigger than it is.
      - ouid 9y ago
        I have two problems with your argument. To start, I'm going to assume that, by defective, you mean unintentional, correct me if I'm wrong. This is equivalent to the assertion that there is no feasible mechanism to preventing your germ cells from accumulating damage due to age, because otherwise, if it was maladapative, AND evolution could design a mechanism for preventing it, it would have. It's been long enough since mammals started reproducing sexually. This doesn't even make a little bit of sense though. It's clearly possible to keep the error rate constant. What's the difference between the germ cells in my body and the germ cells in my offspring's body. Why do those last longer? As you grow older, your offspring have more genetic diversity. It seems like the accumulation of mutations is intentional for older parents. The more similar your children are, the more likely they are to compete with each other, and the older you are, the more children you are already likely to have. So I propose that this is not a defect, but rather by design. Second, why on earth does this explain the hypothesis? Nerds are smarter on average, yes? Does it not make at least twice as much sense that smarter individuals are sexually attractive at older ages than athletic ones than reasoning that genetic defects are the thing that makes a person smart.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Those things are all true of older mothers, too, yet maternal age had no effect. And, likewise, no similar effect was seen on daughters, either from older fathers or older mothers.
  - laretluval 9y ago
    The fact that the result only holds in this one case suggests that the result is statistically bogus.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      Or that it's a product of a Y-linked genetic trait. Or that it's a product of the socio-environmental factors discussed, but other socio-environmental factors like cultural gender roles mitigate it to undetectable levels in the mother » child and parent » daughter cases.
      - braveo 9y ago
        Or the he previous comment about lifestyle is applicable but only manifests itself for fathers as a result of society only recently starting to transition to women being able to be breadwinners.
  - nostrademons 9y ago
    Curious what the correlation is between geekiness, length in career, and career success of women, and also how career success correlates with the age of parenthood. My completely unscientific impression is that scientific & mathematic acumen generates less of a financial return for women, and that when it does, it tends to generate a return earlier, with technical skills providing a foot in the door but subsequent success due to professional relationships. If, as I think the grandparent is suggesting, you posit that the reason for the observed correlation is that geekier males tend to be the ones that have children late in life (as opposed to earlier or not at all), then if geekiness in females leads to either no delay or not having children at all, you wouldn't observe the effect in females.
- ridgeguy 9y ago
  From another article about this research [1], here's what they controlled for in terms of other potential correlations: "This effect persisted after controlling for parent's social/economic status, qualifications and employment." [1] https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-06/kcl-odh061917.php https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-06/kcl-odh06191... Haven't read the original paper yet, so no opinion on quality of the reported research.
  - zamalek 9y ago
    Interesting. That might lead to questions about genetic expression in semen, but then you'd expect daughters to not be immune.
- lumberjack 9y ago
  I think it is just the fact that you cannot ask for help because your father knows nothing of computers.
- eaevans99 9y ago
  Take caution. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. > The mother's age had no impact, and daughters seemed to be immune. When a significant effect is seen in only one of four comparisons (maternal vs paternal, sons vs daughter), then you have to suspect that the effect might be spurious.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    That's interesting, I thought there was a correlation between older mothers and autism, and autism has a correlation to geekiness. My wife had our youngest daughter at 40 (I was 43), and my daughter was diagnosed as autistic at 3 and a half. After lots of therapy she was able to mainstream at age 8, and made the honor roll this year. This morning she noticed a year in a book her older sister was reading. She exclaimed "That's the year Isaac Newton was born!". I said "okay" not sure if she could be right, and she then whispered to me, "and it's the year Galileo died". I looked it up, and she was right. So I kind of consider her geeky.
lazyjones 9y ago
Seems obvious that geekier men start families and have children later. Example: Bill Gates.
- bdamm 9y ago
  Why is it obvious? Doesn't seem obvious to me. Is it because of the stereotype that geekier men don't hook up as young as non-geek men? What is the difference between a geekier man and a less-geeky man? Can it be objectively defined?
  - exclusiv 9y ago
    I'd suggest that geeky dads are going to attempt to be very logical with their all their decisions. So they might take their time with their spouse, want to get a house, get finances in a great place, etc, before making the jump to have kids. At some point the geekier types either alleviate all their concerns and/or realize that a lot of great things can't be framed into a logical decision, and they make the jump. :)
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      >Repeated studies have shown that older sperm is more prone to genetic errors and children are more likely to develop autism and schizophrenia // How is it logical then to wait until you're older (define older!)? Part of my decision - first child c. 30 - was not to wait any longer lest I be unable to keep up with them physically.
      - exclusiv 9y ago
        It's logical from a financial perspective for many people. When I think of older first time parents I think 30+. In the past upper 20s might be considered older because people would get married in young 20s and have children shortly after. You want to be able to afford the increasingly higher costs of having children. You want your marriage to not be stressed from added financial responsibility. People tend to make more as they get older so many wait. That played a role in my decision to wait for sure. The physical component you suggested is certainly a logical argument for having them younger. That pressure is higher for women too because they consider the risks of pregnancy (as you noted) and the possibility they may not be able to conceive if they wait too long. I understand your decision but to me - having a kid at 30 over the physical concern is not logical. Sure I'd be 48 when they're 18 but even at that point, I don't have physical concerns. In fact, that would provide additional motivation to remain healthy. If I was considering physical capability for grandkids then that might enter my decision. My wife just talks about how we'd be the older parents in our kid's class which doesn't concern me. Everyone's situation is different though. I just think finances is a big driver for those that wait and honestly I think it's a good one. If you're married and don't have your finances in order, there's a good chance your marriage won't last and you'll rack up more stress which isn't good for you or your kids.
geekierkid 9y ago
Makes sense, older fathers would be more aware of how technology changes the word and how necessary having at least an understanding of tech is to their offspring's future success.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  Assuming we're all talking solely tech-geek then I'd posit that older fathers are going to be more out of touch with modern tech; which doesn't show anything in itself. The might however have more disposable cash, did they control for wealth?
once-in-a-while 9y ago
From a purely genetic perspective, it's better to have children when you're young.
soared 9y ago
This is kind of alluded to in the article, but isn't their definition of 'geekiness' just a definition of the difference between older fathers and younger fathers? As you age your ability to focus on a single task increase, your become more aloof, etc.
sebringj 9y ago
What about epigenetic factors in low stress environments? We already know this is proven to be a huge factor in gene expression. That is probably the "stable" part they mentioned.
EGreg 9y ago
Perhaps older fathers are themselves geekier! On the other hand, is there correlation between myopia and intelligence?
- j9461701 9y ago
  Yes, because myopia is something of a self-inflicted condition for geeky indoors types. See: http://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia-boom-1.17120 http://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia-boom-1.17120 Basically if you spend all day with your nose in a book, your eyes start going to pot. And the people most likely to read all the time tend to also be quite smart.
cbanek 9y ago
I'm seriously confused on this. First, the article throws out some very reasonable sounding things, like older dads are more established and stable parents. This seems totally legit. Then they start talking of a 'geek gene' that gets passed down by dads as they get older? That seems ridiculous to me. We don't even know how general intelligence works on a genetic level. Overall, I feel like we put way too much stock in genetics over how children are raised. The world children live in today (screens, different types of processed food, flashy movies and cartoons) is so different than hundreds or thousands of years ago. Early childhood years are also hugely important for brain development and social skills yet we give little kids screens to keep them quiet, hooking them early. Just seems like any excuse to not involve parenting is in vogue now.
- chongli 9y ago
  Then they start talking of a 'geek gene' that gets passed down by dads as they get older? That seems ridiculous to me. We don't even know how general intelligence works on a genetic level. That's a bit silly. Far more plausible is the supposition I will make here: geeky guys are less likely to be teenage fathers and geekiness is generally heritable. There, no epigenetic assumption necessary.
  - cbanek 9y ago
    If by 'heritable' you mean 'learned behavior' then I'd agree.
    - quadrangle 9y ago
      look up the difference between inheritable and heritable. Very linguistically bizarre. (note: am not OP from above)
      - cbanek 9y ago
        heritable - able to be inherited, in particular. inheritable - capable of being inherited. Inflammable means flammable? What a country. Sure you can inherit behaviors, but I'm trying to be specific and say I don't believe it's genetically inherited, but a behavior that is learned. Kids learn by mimicking.
carsongross 9y ago
In other news, if you want to be tall, play basketball.
- rytill 9y ago
  Yes of course, if you want to have an older dad just be geeky.
partycoder 9y ago
Reminds me of the movie "Idiocracy"
mikek 9y ago
Older fathers correlate with an increased risk of autism. https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/study-ties-dad’s-age-risk-autism-other-mental-disorders-kids https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/study-ties...
- drzaiusapelord 9y ago
  And mothers too. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/06/10/413205921/more-evidence-that-parents-ages-could-influence-autism-risk http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/06/10/41320592... Worse, double the risk of schizophrenia for children who have dads at 40. Triple at 50. http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/older.htm http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/older.htm Other mood and psychological disorders are linked to father's age as well. Turns out sperm and eggs are delicate and after 40 years of aging, simply can't do their jobs well. Evolution's mechanisms aren't kind to older parents.
  - FeteCommuniste 9y ago
    Just to clarify, the sperm cells of a forty year old man (unlike the egg cells of a forty year old woman) are not themselves forty years old.
    - drzaiusapelord 9y ago
      Right but the body that creates them has damaged 40-year old DNA and the DNA that ends up in the sperm comes from that damaged source.
- nickthemagicman 9y ago
  You can't just post that without posting actual data. http://jamanetwork.com/data/Journals/PEDS/15536/poa60107t2.png http://jamanetwork.com/data/Journals/PEDS/15536/poa60107t2.p... It increases from a .6% chance to a 1.7% chance. Considering most parents only have one to three kids that's really good chances.
- tshadley 9y ago
0x4d464d48 9y ago
I read an article a couple of months ago about autism being linked to delayed fatherhood: http://www.nature.com/news/fathers-bequeath-more-mutations-as-they-age-1.11247 http://www.nature.com/news/fathers-bequeath-more-mutations-a.... Being different was something that touched near and dear to my heart like many self-conscious geeks and my old man didn't have me until he was 41. I know N=1... but when you're debating with your friends whether or not this (http://imgur.com/m52Wo4a http://imgur.com/m52Wo4a) can be classified as a sandwich or if it warrants a new nomenclature entirely and realizing that these are the people you are associating with it's difficult to not look for answers.
- jessaustin 9y ago
  How would that not be a sandwich?
  - 0x4d464d48 9y ago
    There are several points of contention but here are some of the most common points I've encountered: - When the term 'sandwich' is used in reference to a bagel being used for the 'bread' there is a presumption that the bagel is sliced along a transverse equatorial plane with the hole of the bagel being orthogonal to the ground. This photo clearly defies that convention. - A sandwich by most conventions is kept between two or more slices of bread in layers. If there are more than two layers between bread in a sandwich they are stacked vertically and separated by individual slices of bread. The subject under discussion has two layers, which is conventionally acceptable for a sandwich to have, but they are not stacked vertically. Some scholars have argued that this means that it is incorrect to call this a 'sandwich' in the singular sense but it is acceptable to call the entity a composition of 'sandwiches'. This is just a taste of the great bagel debate currently raging across very small niches of geeks but hopefully it gives you a flavour of why no definitive answer has been accepted by the community. And this has not even touched on the bagel-complete problems such as the topological properties of the mobius bagel http://images.tastespotting.com/uploads/thumbnail/125155.jpg http://images.tastespotting.com/uploads/thumbnail/125155.jpg.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
azakai 9y ago
Without mentioning the size of the effect, this is meaningless. Are they 1% geekier? 10% geekier? 0.1% geekier? They provide a link to the data the study was based on, but not the actual study, so it's not obvious how to check this.
glippiglop 9y ago
The findings seem a little off to me. My father was 26 when I was born and he was a leather cutter, so our family wasn't advantaged in any way. He was also a hopeless parent and played very little part in my personal development, despite being physically present throughout my childhood. The really key environmental factors that led me to being a geek can firmly be put down to: My Mother taking me to the library every week; having plenty of books at home and school; and good quality teaching at school. I can't imagine that having an older/wealthier father would have that much additional impact on top of these factors.
- kyberias 9y ago
  They are a little off because you compare them to your own individual life and you ignore the general trends. I'm a geek and libraries had nothing to do with. Rather it was all about my geek big brother and some of my geek friends. Yet I don't deny that the geekiness can be inherited from an old geek father in most cases.
- k__ 9y ago
  My father is a butcher, who was 20 when I was born. Came to geekiness mostly because I moved into different cities too much. Didn't find good friends, so I started gaming. In the end the gaming led me to build my own PCs, fix them when they broke down and tweak the games and drivers. This led to interest in coding.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  “I don't fit the pattern” is not a strong reason for rejecting research findings that claim an increased probability of an outcome based on an input, not an sine qua non relationship. anecdote < data.
  - j9461701 9y ago
    Precisely. I even fit the pattern, being an aspergers STEM major whose father was in his 50s when I was born. But that's no more evidence than the other person's refutation, because personal experience is worthless here. Statistics matter, and our own biases serve only to cloud our analysis.
ThomPete 9y ago
My sons are both geeky (love science, minecraft and math) and like to skateboard, BMX, BayBlade, shoot each other with nerf guns, fight all the time and just play whenever they can get to it. I was 36 when I got my oldest and 39 when i got my second son. Just anecdotal but so does this seems to be.
goldensnit 9y ago
I am geeky, my dad was pretty young (23) when he had me.
JoeAltmaier 9y ago
Maybe its not so much the Dad; its having older siblings by the time you're Dad is old? My youngest grew up very mature, trying to keep up with his older brothers. My first son is a soldier. The 2nd and 3rd are software developers and musicians. Works for me.
goldensnit 9y ago
My dad had me at 23. I am relatively geeky. I don't think it makes much of a difference.
ravenstine 9y ago
Or is it that geekier fathers have children later in life?
asveikau 9y ago
I've also read that older fathers see increased odds of a child with mental illness. Example: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/health/mental-illness-risk-higher-for-children-of-older-parents-study-finds.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/health/mental-illness-ris... I guess the article here also says it: > Repeated studies have shown that older sperm is more prone to genetic errors and children are more likely to develop autism and schizophrenia.
Overtonwindow 9y ago
Perhaps. My dad was 36 when he had me and was deep into ham radio, and computers. I was influenced by all of that.
irrational 9y ago
How old do I need to become before my children become geekier?
seoseokho 9y ago
I think it would've been more convincing, if the study was able to show the splits down non-/geekie parents (or by parent's occupation). My dad's an engineer and he's very geekie for his generation, growing up I always wanted to be like my dad. When I was 12, I'm sure I would've scored high on the geekiness index.
forgottenacc57 9y ago
"Geeky fathers have children older".
alexchantavy 9y ago
Interesting, but this article doesn't say actual numbers for how old an "older father" is defined in the study, and I'm too lazy to dive deeper. Anyone else find out?

187 points by funkylexoo 9y ago

I don't see a link to this actual study, only the TEDS study (was it actually parts of the TEDS study, or just using the same data?) But my first question is if they've considered if really the correlation is coming from closely related variables other than just age: - Father's who start a family later vs father's who start a family early but have additional children later. - Children who are more likely to have multiple older siblings.

manyoso 9y ago
The first one is directly addressed in this article. Others that hint at correlation are also discussed.

rocktronica 9y ago

Sure seems like correlation to me. Older fathers are more likely to have established careers, establishing higher socioeconomic status, affording a lifestyle that engenders "geekiness".

baybal2 9y ago
At least in Russia, I observed an opposite with women. All women of my generation I knew who were into thing like engineering did settle down in early twenties. Russia is a tought life country. A decision to start a family when you are still in your prime may make more sense there.
- klipt 9y ago
  Engineering is mostly male, so it's easier for female engineers to find spouses from among their classmates/coworkers (and harder for male engineers).
notadoc 9y ago
Plus the tendency towards later parenthood for those focused on achieving a higher education and/or advanced career. If someone has a "geekier" career path or educational background, they're almost certainly more likely to have geekier children.
- mattmanser 9y ago
  Shouldn't they control for that? Otherwise it's simply correlation rather than causation.
  - MikeTheGreat 9y ago
    I don't think that controlling for variables can produce a conclusion of causation. (I'm posting half because I think this is correct, and half because I'd love to hear someone more knowledgeable about statistics confirm or deny this :) ) I think that controlling for variables means that you've tried to reduce the impact of other variables on the two that you're interested in. From Wikipedia: "In statistics, controlling for a variable is the attempt to reduce the effect of confounding variables on an observational study. It means that when looking at the effect of one variable, all other variable predictors are held constant." [1] If you could control for all other variables then you'd know how much of a connection between the two variables that you're looking at. I think this doesn't guarantee causation, though - you'd need to do experiments where you adjust the independent variable and then verify that the dependent variable changes the way you're proposing it should. At least, I think that's how it works. Anyone else want to chime in? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlling_for_a_variable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlling_for_a_variable
    - kcanini 9y ago
      Yes, you're right. To guarantee causation, you need to either directly manipulate the variable, or control for every other variable in the universe (impossible). The more extraneous variables you control for, though, the more evidence you have for causation.
olewhalehunter 9y ago
https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/study-ties-dad%E2%80%99s-age-risk-autism-other-mental-disorders-kids https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/study-ties... "In the study population, advancing paternal age was associated with increased risk of some psychiatric disorders (eg, autism..."
- jxramos 9y ago
  I remember a Stanford professor dived into this advanced age gamete suboptimality and stressed to everyone the compromises folks take in delaying past prime biological stages. He showed some time profiles of the diminishing chances for implantation, genetic disorders, etc. It was really palpable because you could sense he was a bit off balance having to present this sort of news to a bunch of young folks with the fountain of youth in their back pockets. The classmates were pretty much silent throughout the delivery. It got me to start thinking about biological optimum and I easily realized it was in the 20s as one would expect. All nighters were a piece of cake, probably to serve the care of an infant waking every 2 hours into the early hours of the night. Another piece of easily perceived evidence was the sheer force of the libido at that age and just how attractive women are in their peak. Lots of conspiring biology to contemplate teleologically.
  - musha68k 9y ago
    I feel stuff like this needs to be taken into account more consciously. It probably wouldn't have changed the decisions I made but still.. Meg Jay writes more about the practical implications of potentially delaying common life goals in "The Defining Decade" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13523061-the-defining-decade https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13523061-the-defining-de...
- wbl 9y ago
  Apparently this is due to autistics taking longer to find mates, rather than mutation damage.
  - taneq 9y ago
samirillian 9y ago
It would also seem that they're less likely to play sports with their children. I wonder if there's a way to isolate athleticism from geekiness.
- magic_beans 9y ago
  Plenty of men with single mothers* learn to play sports just fine (see many NBA and NFL players). *This is not to say that women don't play sports with their sons, but to say that it's silly to assume that all young fathers play sports with their sons.
  - Retric 9y ago
    All is not necessary for statistical correlations.
  - imatworkyo 9y ago
    that might be comparing two different things. In a single parent household (which I'm sure is heavily swayed towards single mothers) kids may be out playing with other kids. In families with older fathers, [assuming] there is a higher percentage of dual parenting ... which could mean more attention at home = less time playing sports with the neighborhood kids
  - awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
    Having a single mother would means kids are by themselves and playing with neighborhood kids. Having an older father means being at home more.
  - mmmpop 9y ago
    > Plenty of men with single mothers* learn to play sports just fine (see many NBA and NFL players). True but I'd bet that many of these men came from urban areas where the community had services in place for younger people to find older mentors, and generally stay out of trouble. I'm from eastern Kentucky originally and was lucky to have a fantastic stepfather, but I watched a lot of kids grow up with not much support past their single parent of either gender, and only a few of those I knew made it to 18 going anywhere near the correct trajectory. Outside of churches, there wasn't a lot of taxpayer-funded support for kids with single parents as it was probably a "moral" issue to the local politicians who still find the idea of a single parent family abhorrent and prefer to ignore it.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
cnnsucks 9y ago
This could be down to older fathers having more basements, garages and tools. There are fewer degrees of freedom when you live in a drywall and carpet apartment.
awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
That could be true, but older fathers also have more defective genes, are less able to play with their children, etc. The children are just genetically "weaker", have more physical issues and participate in far less physical activity because their father is so old. This is anecdotal evidence but one of my friends had a very old dad. He had issues which forced him to wear bifocals and hence he didn't participate in sports. And his father was 60 when he was conceived so his dad didn't play catch with him or get him to try out for little league or play basketball with him. So instead, he stayed home mostly and used the computer and got into "geeky" stuff. The father's other children he had when he was younger are all very active, athletic, etc and none of them have to wear bifocals, etc. I got into sports because my dad played catch with me and encouraged me to play sports because my dad wasn't old when he had me. On the one hand, older fathers will be more established, but on the other hand, they will have more defective genes and less active/physical.
- ouid 9y ago
  What do you mean by "defective genes"?
  - zhemao 9y ago
    Genetic mutations. As you get older, you accumulate more genetic damage, which can be passed on to children. It's fairly well-studied that children of older parents are more susceptible to genetic disorders.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      But even at fairly old ages, the levels are very low. Yes, they are several multiples of the rates at younger ages, but the base rates are also very, very low. So, it's a real issue, but it's also very was to percieved it as much bigger than it is.
    - ouid 9y ago
      I have two problems with your argument. To start, I'm going to assume that, by defective, you mean unintentional, correct me if I'm wrong. This is equivalent to the assertion that there is no feasible mechanism to preventing your germ cells from accumulating damage due to age, because otherwise, if it was maladapative, AND evolution could design a mechanism for preventing it, it would have. It's been long enough since mammals started reproducing sexually. This doesn't even make a little bit of sense though. It's clearly possible to keep the error rate constant. What's the difference between the germ cells in my body and the germ cells in my offspring's body. Why do those last longer? As you grow older, your offspring have more genetic diversity. It seems like the accumulation of mutations is intentional for older parents. The more similar your children are, the more likely they are to compete with each other, and the older you are, the more children you are already likely to have. So I propose that this is not a defect, but rather by design. Second, why on earth does this explain the hypothesis? Nerds are smarter on average, yes? Does it not make at least twice as much sense that smarter individuals are sexually attractive at older ages than athletic ones than reasoning that genetic defects are the thing that makes a person smart.
dragonwriter 9y ago
Those things are all true of older mothers, too, yet maternal age had no effect. And, likewise, no similar effect was seen on daughters, either from older fathers or older mothers.
- laretluval 9y ago
  The fact that the result only holds in this one case suggests that the result is statistically bogus.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Or that it's a product of a Y-linked genetic trait. Or that it's a product of the socio-environmental factors discussed, but other socio-environmental factors like cultural gender roles mitigate it to undetectable levels in the mother » child and parent » daughter cases.
    - braveo 9y ago
      Or the he previous comment about lifestyle is applicable but only manifests itself for fathers as a result of society only recently starting to transition to women being able to be breadwinners.
- nostrademons 9y ago
  Curious what the correlation is between geekiness, length in career, and career success of women, and also how career success correlates with the age of parenthood. My completely unscientific impression is that scientific & mathematic acumen generates less of a financial return for women, and that when it does, it tends to generate a return earlier, with technical skills providing a foot in the door but subsequent success due to professional relationships. If, as I think the grandparent is suggesting, you posit that the reason for the observed correlation is that geekier males tend to be the ones that have children late in life (as opposed to earlier or not at all), then if geekiness in females leads to either no delay or not having children at all, you wouldn't observe the effect in females.
ridgeguy 9y ago
From another article about this research [1], here's what they controlled for in terms of other potential correlations: "This effect persisted after controlling for parent's social/economic status, qualifications and employment." [1] https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-06/kcl-odh061917.php https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-06/kcl-odh06191... Haven't read the original paper yet, so no opinion on quality of the reported research.
- zamalek 9y ago
  Interesting. That might lead to questions about genetic expression in semen, but then you'd expect daughters to not be immune.
lumberjack 9y ago
I think it is just the fact that you cannot ask for help because your father knows nothing of computers.
eaevans99 9y ago
Take caution. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. > The mother's age had no impact, and daughters seemed to be immune. When a significant effect is seen in only one of four comparisons (maternal vs paternal, sons vs daughter), then you have to suspect that the effect might be spurious.
- valuearb 9y ago
  That's interesting, I thought there was a correlation between older mothers and autism, and autism has a correlation to geekiness. My wife had our youngest daughter at 40 (I was 43), and my daughter was diagnosed as autistic at 3 and a half. After lots of therapy she was able to mainstream at age 8, and made the honor roll this year. This morning she noticed a year in a book her older sister was reading. She exclaimed "That's the year Isaac Newton was born!". I said "okay" not sure if she could be right, and she then whispered to me, "and it's the year Galileo died". I looked it up, and she was right. So I kind of consider her geeky.

lazyjones 9y ago

Seems obvious that geekier men start families and have children later. Example: Bill Gates.

bdamm 9y ago
Why is it obvious? Doesn't seem obvious to me. Is it because of the stereotype that geekier men don't hook up as young as non-geek men? What is the difference between a geekier man and a less-geeky man? Can it be objectively defined?
- exclusiv 9y ago
  I'd suggest that geeky dads are going to attempt to be very logical with their all their decisions. So they might take their time with their spouse, want to get a house, get finances in a great place, etc, before making the jump to have kids. At some point the geekier types either alleviate all their concerns and/or realize that a lot of great things can't be framed into a logical decision, and they make the jump. :)
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    >Repeated studies have shown that older sperm is more prone to genetic errors and children are more likely to develop autism and schizophrenia // How is it logical then to wait until you're older (define older!)? Part of my decision - first child c. 30 - was not to wait any longer lest I be unable to keep up with them physically.
    - exclusiv 9y ago
      It's logical from a financial perspective for many people. When I think of older first time parents I think 30+. In the past upper 20s might be considered older because people would get married in young 20s and have children shortly after. You want to be able to afford the increasingly higher costs of having children. You want your marriage to not be stressed from added financial responsibility. People tend to make more as they get older so many wait. That played a role in my decision to wait for sure. The physical component you suggested is certainly a logical argument for having them younger. That pressure is higher for women too because they consider the risks of pregnancy (as you noted) and the possibility they may not be able to conceive if they wait too long. I understand your decision but to me - having a kid at 30 over the physical concern is not logical. Sure I'd be 48 when they're 18 but even at that point, I don't have physical concerns. In fact, that would provide additional motivation to remain healthy. If I was considering physical capability for grandkids then that might enter my decision. My wife just talks about how we'd be the older parents in our kid's class which doesn't concern me. Everyone's situation is different though. I just think finances is a big driver for those that wait and honestly I think it's a good one. If you're married and don't have your finances in order, there's a good chance your marriage won't last and you'll rack up more stress which isn't good for you or your kids.

geekierkid 9y ago

Makes sense, older fathers would be more aware of how technology changes the word and how necessary having at least an understanding of tech is to their offspring's future success.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago
Assuming we're all talking solely tech-geek then I'd posit that older fathers are going to be more out of touch with modern tech; which doesn't show anything in itself. The might however have more disposable cash, did they control for wealth?

once-in-a-while 9y ago

From a purely genetic perspective, it's better to have children when you're young.

soared 9y ago

This is kind of alluded to in the article, but isn't their definition of 'geekiness' just a definition of the difference between older fathers and younger fathers? As you age your ability to focus on a single task increase, your become more aloof, etc.

sebringj 9y ago

What about epigenetic factors in low stress environments? We already know this is proven to be a huge factor in gene expression. That is probably the "stable" part they mentioned.

EGreg 9y ago

Perhaps older fathers are themselves geekier! On the other hand, is there correlation between myopia and intelligence?

j9461701 9y ago
Yes, because myopia is something of a self-inflicted condition for geeky indoors types. See: http://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia-boom-1.17120 http://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia-boom-1.17120 Basically if you spend all day with your nose in a book, your eyes start going to pot. And the people most likely to read all the time tend to also be quite smart.

cbanek 9y ago

I'm seriously confused on this. First, the article throws out some very reasonable sounding things, like older dads are more established and stable parents. This seems totally legit. Then they start talking of a 'geek gene' that gets passed down by dads as they get older? That seems ridiculous to me. We don't even know how general intelligence works on a genetic level. Overall, I feel like we put way too much stock in genetics over how children are raised. The world children live in today (screens, different types of processed food, flashy movies and cartoons) is so different than hundreds or thousands of years ago. Early childhood years are also hugely important for brain development and social skills yet we give little kids screens to keep them quiet, hooking them early. Just seems like any excuse to not involve parenting is in vogue now.

chongli 9y ago
Then they start talking of a 'geek gene' that gets passed down by dads as they get older? That seems ridiculous to me. We don't even know how general intelligence works on a genetic level. That's a bit silly. Far more plausible is the supposition I will make here: geeky guys are less likely to be teenage fathers and geekiness is generally heritable. There, no epigenetic assumption necessary.
- cbanek 9y ago
  If by 'heritable' you mean 'learned behavior' then I'd agree.
  - quadrangle 9y ago
    look up the difference between inheritable and heritable. Very linguistically bizarre. (note: am not OP from above)
    - cbanek 9y ago
      heritable - able to be inherited, in particular. inheritable - capable of being inherited. Inflammable means flammable? What a country. Sure you can inherit behaviors, but I'm trying to be specific and say I don't believe it's genetically inherited, but a behavior that is learned. Kids learn by mimicking.

carsongross 9y ago

In other news, if you want to be tall, play basketball.

rytill 9y ago
Yes of course, if you want to have an older dad just be geeky.

partycoder 9y ago

Reminds me of the movie "Idiocracy"

mikek 9y ago

Older fathers correlate with an increased risk of autism. https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/study-ties-dad’s-age-risk-autism-other-mental-disorders-kids https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/study-ties...

drzaiusapelord 9y ago
And mothers too. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/06/10/413205921/more-evidence-that-parents-ages-could-influence-autism-risk http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/06/10/41320592... Worse, double the risk of schizophrenia for children who have dads at 40. Triple at 50. http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/older.htm http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/older.htm Other mood and psychological disorders are linked to father's age as well. Turns out sperm and eggs are delicate and after 40 years of aging, simply can't do their jobs well. Evolution's mechanisms aren't kind to older parents.
- FeteCommuniste 9y ago
  Just to clarify, the sperm cells of a forty year old man (unlike the egg cells of a forty year old woman) are not themselves forty years old.
  - drzaiusapelord 9y ago
    Right but the body that creates them has damaged 40-year old DNA and the DNA that ends up in the sperm comes from that damaged source.
nickthemagicman 9y ago
You can't just post that without posting actual data. http://jamanetwork.com/data/Journals/PEDS/15536/poa60107t2.png http://jamanetwork.com/data/Journals/PEDS/15536/poa60107t2.p... It increases from a .6% chance to a 1.7% chance. Considering most parents only have one to three kids that's really good chances.
tshadley 9y ago

0x4d464d48 9y ago

I read an article a couple of months ago about autism being linked to delayed fatherhood: http://www.nature.com/news/fathers-bequeath-more-mutations-as-they-age-1.11247 http://www.nature.com/news/fathers-bequeath-more-mutations-a.... Being different was something that touched near and dear to my heart like many self-conscious geeks and my old man didn't have me until he was 41. I know N=1... but when you're debating with your friends whether or not this (http://imgur.com/m52Wo4a http://imgur.com/m52Wo4a) can be classified as a sandwich or if it warrants a new nomenclature entirely and realizing that these are the people you are associating with it's difficult to not look for answers.

jessaustin 9y ago
How would that not be a sandwich?
- 0x4d464d48 9y ago
  There are several points of contention but here are some of the most common points I've encountered: - When the term 'sandwich' is used in reference to a bagel being used for the 'bread' there is a presumption that the bagel is sliced along a transverse equatorial plane with the hole of the bagel being orthogonal to the ground. This photo clearly defies that convention. - A sandwich by most conventions is kept between two or more slices of bread in layers. If there are more than two layers between bread in a sandwich they are stacked vertically and separated by individual slices of bread. The subject under discussion has two layers, which is conventionally acceptable for a sandwich to have, but they are not stacked vertically. Some scholars have argued that this means that it is incorrect to call this a 'sandwich' in the singular sense but it is acceptable to call the entity a composition of 'sandwiches'. This is just a taste of the great bagel debate currently raging across very small niches of geeks but hopefully it gives you a flavour of why no definitive answer has been accepted by the community. And this has not even touched on the bagel-complete problems such as the topological properties of the mobius bagel http://images.tastespotting.com/uploads/thumbnail/125155.jpg http://images.tastespotting.com/uploads/thumbnail/125155.jpg.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

azakai 9y ago

Without mentioning the size of the effect, this is meaningless. Are they 1% geekier? 10% geekier? 0.1% geekier? They provide a link to the data the study was based on, but not the actual study, so it's not obvious how to check this.

glippiglop 9y ago

The findings seem a little off to me. My father was 26 when I was born and he was a leather cutter, so our family wasn't advantaged in any way. He was also a hopeless parent and played very little part in my personal development, despite being physically present throughout my childhood. The really key environmental factors that led me to being a geek can firmly be put down to: My Mother taking me to the library every week; having plenty of books at home and school; and good quality teaching at school. I can't imagine that having an older/wealthier father would have that much additional impact on top of these factors.

kyberias 9y ago
They are a little off because you compare them to your own individual life and you ignore the general trends. I'm a geek and libraries had nothing to do with. Rather it was all about my geek big brother and some of my geek friends. Yet I don't deny that the geekiness can be inherited from an old geek father in most cases.
k__ 9y ago
My father is a butcher, who was 20 when I was born. Came to geekiness mostly because I moved into different cities too much. Didn't find good friends, so I started gaming. In the end the gaming led me to build my own PCs, fix them when they broke down and tweak the games and drivers. This led to interest in coding.
dragonwriter 9y ago
“I don't fit the pattern” is not a strong reason for rejecting research findings that claim an increased probability of an outcome based on an input, not an sine qua non relationship. anecdote < data.
- j9461701 9y ago
  Precisely. I even fit the pattern, being an aspergers STEM major whose father was in his 50s when I was born. But that's no more evidence than the other person's refutation, because personal experience is worthless here. Statistics matter, and our own biases serve only to cloud our analysis.

ThomPete 9y ago

My sons are both geeky (love science, minecraft and math) and like to skateboard, BMX, BayBlade, shoot each other with nerf guns, fight all the time and just play whenever they can get to it. I was 36 when I got my oldest and 39 when i got my second son. Just anecdotal but so does this seems to be.

goldensnit 9y ago

I am geeky, my dad was pretty young (23) when he had me.

JoeAltmaier 9y ago

Maybe its not so much the Dad; its having older siblings by the time you're Dad is old? My youngest grew up very mature, trying to keep up with his older brothers. My first son is a soldier. The 2nd and 3rd are software developers and musicians. Works for me.

goldensnit 9y ago

My dad had me at 23. I am relatively geeky. I don't think it makes much of a difference.

ravenstine 9y ago

Or is it that geekier fathers have children later in life?

asveikau 9y ago

I've also read that older fathers see increased odds of a child with mental illness. Example: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/health/mental-illness-risk-higher-for-children-of-older-parents-study-finds.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/health/mental-illness-ris... I guess the article here also says it: > Repeated studies have shown that older sperm is more prone to genetic errors and children are more likely to develop autism and schizophrenia.

Overtonwindow 9y ago

Perhaps. My dad was 36 when he had me and was deep into ham radio, and computers. I was influenced by all of that.

irrational 9y ago

How old do I need to become before my children become geekier?

seoseokho 9y ago

I think it would've been more convincing, if the study was able to show the splits down non-/geekie parents (or by parent's occupation). My dad's an engineer and he's very geekie for his generation, growing up I always wanted to be like my dad. When I was 12, I'm sure I would've scored high on the geekiness index.

forgottenacc57 9y ago

"Geeky fathers have children older".

alexchantavy 9y ago

Interesting, but this article doesn't say actual numbers for how old an "older father" is defined in the study, and I'm too lazy to dive deeper. Anyone else find out?