3 ms·

Older men having children probably does reduce the IQ of future generations given they will pass on more mutations, but no this is not what I meant. Think of al

Older men having children probably does reduce the IQ of future generations given they will pass on more mutations, but no this is not what I meant. Think of all the people you know, think of how smart each person is, and then count up how many children each person has. Unless you you know a very small number of people I think you will see what I mean.

Ygg2 9y ago
Yeah, but your explanation conflicts with the article explanation.
- danieltillett 9y ago
  Not at all as there are two effects going on. You become dumber as you get older (I unfortunately know this from personal experience), while the average intelligence of each generational cohort can also be changing through differential reproduction.
  - Ygg2 9y ago
    Yeah, but you becoming dumber as you get older won't affect scores, assuming each generation is tested at same point in their life. That's why I asked about their method.
    - godshatter 9y ago
      They did talk in the article about how more subjects sitting for IQ tests are 60 or older, so they must do more than just test once in a person's life, or they have been branching out and testing more people.
Idontknowmyuser 9y ago
this seems to contradict what you're saying: http://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/older-men-have-geekier-smarter-sons-study http://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/older-men-have-geek...
- danieltillett 9y ago
  The older men who have the opportunity to have children are not representative of all older men. The average 50 year old man is not having children, just the small percentage partnered to much young women. Have a guess what attributes they might have?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
maxerickson 9y ago
Statistics about how stupid people are outbreeding the smarts would be way more impressive than anecdotes. Especially given things like the Flynn effect.
- soundwave106 9y ago
  High intelligence does seem to negatively correlated with fertility rate -- one study here, but there are plenty in Google Scholar. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289607000244 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289607... But "intelligence" / "IQ tests" are tangled up with a lot of correlating factors and biases so it's hard to say what this means. For instance, simply being poor affects cognitive ability considerably -- https://www.princeton.edu/news/2013/08/29/poor-concentration-poverty-reduces-brainpower-needed-navigating-other-areas-life https://www.princeton.edu/news/2013/08/29/poor-concentration... We also know that low fertility is also associated with high education levels -- http://www.jstor.org/stable/2137845 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2137845 -- and income -- https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=838227 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=838227 I think one key here is, now that infant mortality / childhood diseases are much lower than it used to be, a much larger portion of families really want to use family planning methods to keep family sizes low, globally. This is not necessarily a bad thing. http://www.economist.com/node/14743589 http://www.economist.com/node/14743589 So I would take a statement like "the stupids are outbreeding the smarts" as more that, for multiple reasons, access and knowledge of family planning is not as good for those with less education or income. So rather than making this a moan about dysgenics and Idiocracy, it seems a call to action to absolutely ensure these people at least have the access to the health care they need. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2835625/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2835625/
  - danieltillett 9y ago
    Why I fully support every person having access to family planing methods as I don’t think anyone should be having children they don’t want, the relative cost of children would still cause differential changes to the population even if 100% of people had health care access. Children are much more expensive to the highly educated, both directly through things like housing and education, and indirectly via opportunity costs. The more expensive you make something the less of it will be consumed unless it is a Veblen good.
mcguire 9y ago
nanomoose's suggestion of "immigrants" is dead. I'm not entirely sure what your comment has that his does not.

Ygg2 9y ago

Yeah, but your explanation conflicts with the article explanation.

danieltillett 9y ago
Not at all as there are two effects going on. You become dumber as you get older (I unfortunately know this from personal experience), while the average intelligence of each generational cohort can also be changing through differential reproduction.
- Ygg2 9y ago
  Yeah, but you becoming dumber as you get older won't affect scores, assuming each generation is tested at same point in their life. That's why I asked about their method.
  - godshatter 9y ago
    They did talk in the article about how more subjects sitting for IQ tests are 60 or older, so they must do more than just test once in a person's life, or they have been branching out and testing more people.

Idontknowmyuser 9y ago

this seems to contradict what you're saying: http://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/older-men-have-geekier-smarter-sons-study http://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/older-men-have-geek...

danieltillett 9y ago
The older men who have the opportunity to have children are not representative of all older men. The average 50 year old man is not having children, just the small percentage partnered to much young women. Have a guess what attributes they might have?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

maxerickson 9y ago

Statistics about how stupid people are outbreeding the smarts would be way more impressive than anecdotes. Especially given things like the Flynn effect.

soundwave106 9y ago
High intelligence does seem to negatively correlated with fertility rate -- one study here, but there are plenty in Google Scholar. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289607000244 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289607... But "intelligence" / "IQ tests" are tangled up with a lot of correlating factors and biases so it's hard to say what this means. For instance, simply being poor affects cognitive ability considerably -- https://www.princeton.edu/news/2013/08/29/poor-concentration-poverty-reduces-brainpower-needed-navigating-other-areas-life https://www.princeton.edu/news/2013/08/29/poor-concentration... We also know that low fertility is also associated with high education levels -- http://www.jstor.org/stable/2137845 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2137845 -- and income -- https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=838227 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=838227 I think one key here is, now that infant mortality / childhood diseases are much lower than it used to be, a much larger portion of families really want to use family planning methods to keep family sizes low, globally. This is not necessarily a bad thing. http://www.economist.com/node/14743589 http://www.economist.com/node/14743589 So I would take a statement like "the stupids are outbreeding the smarts" as more that, for multiple reasons, access and knowledge of family planning is not as good for those with less education or income. So rather than making this a moan about dysgenics and Idiocracy, it seems a call to action to absolutely ensure these people at least have the access to the health care they need. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2835625/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2835625/
- danieltillett 9y ago
  Why I fully support every person having access to family planing methods as I don’t think anyone should be having children they don’t want, the relative cost of children would still cause differential changes to the population even if 100% of people had health care access. Children are much more expensive to the highly educated, both directly through things like housing and education, and indirectly via opportunity costs. The more expensive you make something the less of it will be consumed unless it is a Veblen good.

mcguire 9y ago

nanomoose's suggestion of "immigrants" is dead. I'm not entirely sure what your comment has that his does not.