4 ms·
With an average difference of only 3 IQ points that this study found, these children appear to be missing out on little with regards to intelligence. I would b
by hachiya 18y ago
With an average difference of only 3 IQ points that this study
found, these children appear to be missing out on little with regards
to intelligence.
I would be more inclined to believe any differences in intelligence,
if there really are any, are due to the environment in which the child
was raised, rather than genetic advantages and disadvantages. In
today's world, I would guess that children born to 50 year old men are
being born into a family where the wife is not the father's first
wife, and the father is not as likely to be as dedicated a father as
the younger fathers plan to be. This is a sweeping generalization,
but I would wager that for those 50 year-olds who are remarried (once,
twice, or more), by the fact that they did not care to keep the family
intact the first time (excluding cases where the wife died), these men
and their current wives would be less likely to provide a nurturing
environment compared to a young father.
A sweeping generalization, but my gut feeling, based on the likely
fact that many of those 50 year old fathers are remarried once, twice,
or more, indicating to me that they are not as good a father as the
SOME of the 20 year olds will be.
Also, statistics on society's accepted geniuses do not seem to show a
correlation between fathers' ages and the intelligence of the
offspring.
Here is a list I have compiled. IQ scores may be disputed, but the
intelligence of these people generally are not.
Genius IQ Father's age
------ -- ------------
Einstein about 160 31
Galileo 185 44
==========================================
Bobby Fischer 187 Likely father, Paul nemenyi: 48
Birth certificate father, Hans-Gerhardt Fischer: 35
http://www.nndb.com/people/455/000024383/
==========================================
Madame de Stael 180 33
Ludwig Wittgenstein 190 42
Blaise Pascal 195 35
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz 205 49
John Stuart Mill 200 33
Emanuel Swedenborg 205 34
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe 210 39
As you can see, one of the highest IQ's, Leibniz's, had a father who as 49 years old.
Einstein's, considered the lowest at 160, had a father of 31, the
youngest in this list.
So this is opposite the study's findings. However, I don't really see
a correlation overall.
With the study's difference of only 3 IQ points on average, I am
inclined to believe that age makes no difference in the intelligence
of their offspring, especially in those families that provide a
nurturing environment, regardless of the parents' ages.
- unalone 18y agoWow! Pretty excellent research. Question, because I'm certain somebody knows: is that story of 100 IQ - 60 = 180 - 140 in terms of relative intelligence true? Or is that just metaphorical and not actually representative of "people doing such-and-such are on different planes of existence"?
- bd 18y agois that story of 100 IQ - 60 = 180 - 140 in terms of relative intelligence true? Short answer: no. Longer answer: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=407083 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=407083 ---- Also: as katz mentioned above, IQs of historical figures are complete nonsense. I can't believe it actually got so many upvotes here on HN.
- time_management 18y agoQuestion, because I'm certain somebody knows: is that story of 100 IQ - 60 = 180 - 140 in terms of relative intelligence true? Not really. "180 IQ" is taken to mean two different things. Precociousness is the first; a 6-year-old with the cognitive performance of an 11-year-old has a "183 IQ". It's not terribly meaningful, though, because this says nothing about his adulthood performance, which will probably be closer to the average (usually 135-150). The second is extreme cognitive ability in adults or near-adults, on an "absolute" rather than age-graded scale, which we can't measure using an IQ test. In general, IQ tests become less meaningful (correlating less strongly to what we consider "intelligence") after 125, and are unreliable after about 150. Many distinguished professors, even in math and the sciences, score in the 120s to 130s when tested. It's not that these people are "only" 98th percentile; the test simply isn't great at measuring the high range. Also, for case in point about the diminishing utility and relevance of IQ: consider a relationship between a person with an IQ of 125 and one at 100. Someone at 100 is unlikely to finish college, and 125 is the average IQ of Ivy League students. Their relationship would be unlikely to last due to the extreme disparity of intelligence, as well as the different schools and jobs they would be likely to have. On the other hand, if the disparity were 150/125, they'd probably be considered to be well-matched; they'd have gone to similar schools and have similar educational/job experiences; although the disparity would be present, it wouldn't be such that the 150 would end up completely dominating the 125.