« Pew survey of Asians | Main | Olympus OM-D E-M5 part 2 »

June 20, 2012

Comments

"Kanazawa also has a pretty cool blog at Psychology today."

Make that had. Kanazawa was fired last year for presenting research about how black females are the least attractive women. You will note his last blog post was dated May 2011.

The scientific-minded scholars at Psychology Today promptly fired him and you can see why. After all, what might he say next? That the earth revolves around the sun? That there are racial differences in IQ?

Can't have that nonsense in a journal devoted to cold, hard science, you see ...

"more intelligent people are less likely to want to have a bunch of children. (I know, for example, that children bring no joy to me.)"

That lack of desire is the result of ignorance. Once you have the first one, you realize that kids are really fun, and the additional cost of additional kids in money / effort / lost free time is not all that high.

It remains true that *other people's kids* bring no joy to me -- but my own bring me great joy, and I wish I'd had 'em sooner.

"Historically, people with higher or lower IQs had fewer grandchildren."

How do you reconcile this view with "Farewell to Alms"? Or do you not think Clark was convincing?

[HS: I'm really talking about the same thing. A particular environment favors a particular IQ as being the best for having the most grandchildren. Civilization had the effect of causing the ideal IQ to be higher--the IQ which we today consider to be average, but which was above average 2000 years ago. But modern civilation in the 21st century is causing the ideal IQ to be significantly lower, and this will have really disastrous consequences for the future of civilization.]

Ditto, JP.

You are forgetting a crucial point: Today, especially in THE WEST...

it IS THE SMARTEST people (esp males) who DON'T have kids.

Intelligence WILL then be an annoying, future MUTATION.

JP -> Raising young children is cool, but when they reach teen age (~12) it becomes horrible.

Also, a reason why I don't want children is that I'm afraid they'd be ugly (physically, I mean). You can never know if say, your daughter, is going to be pretty or not. That's why I am cautiously refusing to father now and am waiting for embryo screening and genetic engineering techniques.

Firepower -> A guy on Sailer's blog recently pointed out that the Ancient Greeks were far smarter than both their Roman neighbours and the Whites of today.

Yet the Ancient Greeks were defeated by the Romans and wiped out of the genetic pool during the last two millenia.

Where exactly is the evidence that higher IQ males have fewer children besides the whines of some bitter nerds who blame their imagined IQ for not getting laid?

The most consistent relation is that higher status men have more children. That's not the same as high IQ men having more children but it's to the same direction.

[HS: Probably the men with the most children are famous professional athletes, who have high status but not especially high IQ.]

"Raising young children is cool, but when they reach teen age (~12) it becomes horrible"

There are horrible aspects of childhood, too, but you get through them. Teenage horribleness is also a passing phase. Unfortunately they can't become (hopefully) admirable adults without being reprehensible teenagers for six years or so first.

"I'm afraid they'd be ugly (physically, I mean). You can never know if say, your daughter, is going to be pretty or not."

Easy. Choose a hot wife and there's a good chance your kids will be attractive, too.

"it IS THE SMARTEST people (esp males) who DON'T have kids."

Actually, smart men have as many or more children than dumb men. It's smart women who don't have children.

I think within-population differences in intelligence are mostly due to differing mutation loads. See this paper for a detailed argument about this: http://tinyurl.com/c58c2kj

Therefore it is unlikely that within-population IQ differences have had adaptive value in the long term. Only those intelligence differences that separate humans from our non-human ancestors and races from each other have had adaptive value.

@JP,

"That lack of desire is the result of ignorance. Once you have the first one, you realize that kids are really fun"

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/why-does-anyone-have-children/

No disrespect but that statement is actually the one that is the result of ignorance. Children may be fulfilling but studies show they do not bring happiness but actually detract from happiness. Surely there are moments when they bring you great joy but the net effect appears to be slightly negative to happiness.

There are surely outliers and you may be one but most likely you have convinced yourself of something that is not true. I have 2 kids by the way and they are great, but my life is not easier or happier on the whole because of them.

Here's a recent paper on income differences and fertility, income being a proxy for IQ: http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(12)00036-0/abstract . They found that women with higher incomes have fewer children, whereas among men there is either no association between fertility and income or there's a slight positive correlation, i.e., men with more money have more children. These associations are explained by childlessness: low-income women are rarely childless, while high-income women frequently are, and the reverse is true for men.

[HS: Income is a really bad proxy for IQ because they aren't as highly correlated as you think, and it's easy to imagine that dumb rich men have more kids (because they are more attractive to fertile women and because they can afford to raise them) then smart poor men (who are looked upon as nerdy losers by fertile women and because they can't afford kids).]

HS, you forget that raw "average IQ" power is not constant in time. It's just what's average on a bell curve for a certain group in a certain moment. Little doubt that out ancestors had less brain power (less average IQ on our current IQ scale), for instance, average IQ could've been 70 10,000 years ago.

So seems those with IQ above average have evolutionary advantage. How much above, depends on time when people live in. For example, now everything processing faster than 10,000 years ago, so the difference between optimal and average IQ must be larger in our days.

"Actually, smart men have as many or more children than dumb men."

You show me a college with professors and their 7 kids - and I'll show you a prison with inmates and their 70,000 kids.

You're saying Stephen Hawking outbreeds pedro and dontrelle.

I'd rather spend the money I would have spent raising children on myself. I'm not rich, but even if I was, I've already decided not to bring children into the world. The future is not particularly bright for the current generation of children growing up in the world. I care enough for my offspring to not bring them into this world at this particular juncture in time. If you have a hot wife and lots of money, by all means go for it.

The ancient Greeks were wiped out genetically by the Romans? I think there were still plenty of them left (the slaves even tended to have some rather high status jobs), they were subservient to a larger empire.
If you run CHILDS against WORDSUM in the GSS, controlling for SEX, males have R = -0.4 while females have R= -0.11
Commenters focus on the dysgenic effect on males presumably because they are disproportionately childless nerdy men.
http://entitledtoanopinion.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/iq-more-unfit-for-females-than-males/

You keep on talking about how intelligent Mitt Romney is. He has a lot of children (and grandchildren?).

"And I just love the subchapter that has the title 'If Liberals Are More Intelligent than Conservatives, Why Are Liberals So Stupid.' ”

I haven't read Kanazawa's book so I don't know what his reasons are. But I'd reached that conclusion independently. My reasoning is that a lot of socio-political opinions are based on psychology & social class rather than intelligence. Unfortunately, society has been stratified by intelligence so long that most intelligent people have been sheltered and can afford to believe silly things in order to be popular. Believing PC BS is a luxury,

Dave: he's a Mormon. They're one of the few groups that have escaped the modern dysgenic effects.

I think all the high-powered career prep delays childbearing until it's too late for smart women. But smart men, being men, can just marry their secretary and pump out a bunch of kids. Though I wouldn't be too surprised if this is the reason autism's on the rise.

[HS: Romney only has 5 kids, I know religious Mormons who have more than that.]

"The ancient Greeks were wiped out genetically by the Romans?"

Dienekes debunked the idea Ancient and modern Greeks are phenotypically different sometime ago. For one thing, Greeks did not portray their deities as blonde and blue eyed, as one would expect them to if the Ancient Hellenes were "Nordics".

Also, Dienekes pointed out Carleton Coon himself took measurements of skeletons of Ancient Greeks and found them to be basically identical to modern Greeks.

"I think there were still plenty of them left (the slaves even tended to have some rather high status jobs),"

Greeks were highly valued as educated slave labor by the Romans. Most slaves, btw, in ancient Rome were European in origin. Spartacus, for one notable example, was born in what is now Bulgaria.

"If you run CHILDS against WORDSUM in the GSS, controlling for SEX, males have R = -0.4 while females have R= -0.11
Commenters focus on the dysgenic effect on males presumably because they are disproportionately childless nerdy men."

As you go towards the far end of the bell curve, you'll find fewer high IQ females than high IQ men because men have higher *variance than females.

Thanks to this higher male variance, it's more important for intelligent men to have lots of children with reasonably intelligent women than it is for high IQ women to reproduce.

* Greater variance is why there are relatively fewer female idiots compared to men.

"You're saying Stephen Hawking outbreeds pedro and dontrelle." - firepower

That statement wasn't to me but I can't resist. Hawking actually did outbreed pedro and dontrelle. He has three children which is above average for both hispanics and blacks.

*
*
"The future is not particularly bright for the current generation of children growing up in the world." - L

Sorry, But I'm going to have to disagree with you too. 100 years ago the leading causes of death were infectious diseases. Who is dying of smallpox, polio and TB today? The infant mortality has never been lower and the life expectancy has never been longer. Crime is even down over the last 40 years. And the breakthroughs in medicine and technology mean things will only get better. There has NEVER been a better time to have children than right now.

Now, I know what you're going to say -- that there is overpopulation, limited resources, etc. But that's not true. Birthrates worldwide have already leveled off at 2 which is slightly below replacement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezVk1ahRF78

Of course, its not replacement level in every country. Its actually below replacement level in the US which is a serious problem. Thanks for making it worse.

As a few commenters pointed out at Sailer's site, a society of all 130+IQ people would probably end in disaster. A functioning society needs a bell curve, and a prosperous society probably should have a mean in the 105-110 range. In evolutionary terms a population group with a few smart people leading or at least providing innovative ideas coupled with mostly diligent lower IQ "implementers" would probably survive much better than a group consisting mostly of high IQ dreamers, schemers and abstract thinkers.

Maybe this explains why Jews do better when they live with a larger population group than they do on their own.

***ut modern civilation in the 21st century is causing the ideal IQ to be significantly lower, and this will have really disastrous consequences for the future of civilization.***

Even left wing professor James Flynn (of Flynn effect fame) has pointed this out:

"n internationally recognised expert on intelligence warns New Zealand children could get dumber in three or four generations unless women with higher education started producing more babies.

Otago University emeritus professor Dr Jim Flynn was commenting on census figures that show mothers without a higher education were the anchor of New Zealand's current fertility rate.

"Everyone knows if we only allowed short people to reproduce there would be a tendency in terms of genes for height to diminish. Intelligence is no different from other human traits," he told the Sunday Star-Times.

"A persistent genetic trend which lowered the genetic quality for brain physiology would have some effect eventually."

Statistics show women without tertiary qualifications who had reached their early 40s had produced 2.57 babies each.

In contrast, women with a higher education were producing just 1.85 babies each.

Dr Flynn said at 73 he was too old to worry about offending anyone."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10450313

HS said:" But modern civilation in the 21st century is causing the ideal IQ to be significantly lower, and this will have really disastrous consequences for the future of civilization."

A much more reasonable explanation is their are limits to growth, the same way CPU speed has hit a brick wall and they had to go multicore and are massively rethinking how programs are constructed. Back in the pentium 4 days they were projecting 10-20+Ghz cpu's and we're still stuck at officially 3.5Ghz (unofficially 4.5ghz).

IQ assumes that human intelligence is a linear phenomenon. There are tonnes of non-iq based factors that are important for civilization - health, resistance to disease, energy levels (i.e. not everyone has the same amount of energy, endurance, sensitivity, etc). Not to mention non-human things like geography, energy, oil.

Not to mention if you've ever been to mensa you know there are plenty of messed up high IQ people.

Gosh, there are so many wrong and stupid things in this comment area that I don't even know if it's a good thing to answer them.

I'm perhaps too melancholic and defeatist in character.

My own quick look at the GSS data shows that for White males, IQ has an approximately neutral effect on fertility (http://jayman.blog.com/files/2012/06/W-M-IQ-Fert.png ).

Romney is typical of most conservatives in his fecundity. Indeed the key distinction between liberals and conservatives is the rate of breeding. See here at my blog (http://jayman.blog.com/2012/06/01/liberalism-hbd-population-and-solutions-for-the-future/ ).

@destructure: The above blog post is in line with what you're saying.

Anyone who moans about dysgenic or sub-replacement fertility and then says that they don't intend to have children themselves really doesn't have much to complain about. Indeed actually that's quite ironic. I wouldn't trust studies that talk about the happiness of those with children compared to those without. Quite likely those are not identical groups, on top of a myriad of other confounding factors. That said, the purpose of having children isn't necessarily to make one happy but to satisfy a biological urge.

@Fetzen: If you are reasonably attractive and your children's mom is too, chances are they will be decent looking. If they are not, chances are you will have more boys than girls (ala Kanazawa) and attractiveness will be less of an issue.

Also, classical ancient Greeks were not wiped out by the ancestors of modern Greeks. They are one and the same. The two groups do not have to be ethnically different for their average IQs to differ greatly over the span of time in between them.

A big difference with your theory , male sexual activity fréquency And intelligence. Exactly the opposite (except for your beta male intelligence imitating stupid alpha male)

"income is a really bad proxy for IQ because they aren't as highly correlated as you think,"

I'm aware that income is far from a perfect proxy for IQ.

"If you run CHILDS against WORDSUM in the GSS, controlling for SEX, males have R = -0.4 while females have R= -0.11"

You'd have to control for race and age at least to get more meaningful results. Morever, WORDSUM has a very low ceiling, so you cannot use it to investigate how many children high-IQ people have. # of children would also be more informative than a correlation coefficient. Finally, the study I cited above was based on European data, which may be different from America. Razib wrote about class & fertility internationally here: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2009/06/differences-in-fertility-by-class.php . In Scandinavia, for example, the number of children does not vary much by social class, but it does in Southern Europe.

"No disrespect but that statement is actually the one that is the result of ignorance. Children may be fulfilling but studies show they do not bring happiness but actually detract from happiness."

The ignorance is yours, not mine. In fact, studies show that children *increase* happiness.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/a34114m070112044/?MUD=MP

Children and Life Satisfaction
Luis Angeles
Journal of Happiness Studies, 2010, Volume 11, Number 4, Pages 523-538

We investigate the relationship between having children at home and life satisfaction. Contrary to much of the literature, our results are consistent with an effect of children on life satisfaction that is positive, large and increasing in the number of children. The effect, however, is contingent on the individual’s characteristics. In particular, our findings are consistent with children making married people better off, while most unmarried individuals appear to be worse off with children. We also analyze the role of factors such as gender, age, income and education.")

"Surely there are moments when they bring you great joy but the net effect appears to be slightly negative to happiness."

Nope. And most likely, any negative effect on happiness is self-inflicted -- i.e., if you are an unhappy parent, you aren't doing it right.

"There are surely outliers and you may be one but most likely you have convinced yourself of something that is not true."

Most likely the author of the study you cited is a childless SWPL who is trying to justify his own wretched selfishness and who is appealing for support to other wretched, selfish SWPLs.

I sure don't know how you propose to prove that I am deluded about my happiness rather than actually happy. I am perfectly capable of evaluating my own happiness with open eyes, thank you very much, and my happiness has most definitely increased since I had kids.

"I have 2 kids by the way and they are great, but my life is not easier or happier on the whole because of them."

If your life isn't easier, again, it's because you're not doing it right.

If two attractive, intelligent, sweet-natured kids don't make you happy, then you are a miserable, poor-spirited creature indeed.

" In evolutionary terms a population group with a few smart people leading or at least providing innovative ideas coupled with mostly diligent lower IQ "implementers" would probably survive much better than a group consisting mostly of high IQ dreamers, schemers and abstract thinkers.

Maybe this explains why Jews do better when they live with a larger population group than they do on their own".

The same could be argued for Asians, where the more intelligent ones are thriving in the Western world. With this being said, could we make a case for an large influx of Asians into nations dominated by an elite White majority (including Jews)? Prole Whites seem to have stagnated and are no longer of much use, with the exception of taking up menial and manual labor roles.

A good example is the Chinese in Milan, Italy. Many of them have set up shop there and are thriving. It's a revitalization of the ailing fashion industry. The Chinese immigrants in Italy are a lot more productive and significant than the Eastern European migrants who are just menial workers. They trump the religious Muslims in Europe who contribute next to nothing in a secular world (a similar case could be made for the Hasidim Jewish population).

"Nope. And most likely, any negative effect on happiness is self-inflicted -- i.e., if you are an unhappy parent, you aren't doing it right."

"Most likely the author of the study you cited is a childless SWPL who is trying to justify his own wretched selfishness and who is appealing for support to other wretched, selfish SWPLs."

"If your life isn't easier, again, it's because you're not doing it right."

"If two attractive, intelligent, sweet-natured kids don't make you happy, then you are a miserable, poor-spirited creature indeed."

"I sure don't know how you propose to prove that I am deluded about my happiness rather than actually happy. I am perfectly capable of evaluating my own happiness with open eyes, thank you very much, and my happiness has most definitely increased since I had kids."

Indeed, you sound very happy. I know I feel happier just reading things you write.

@ TUJ "Dienekes debunked the idea Ancient and modern Greeks are phenotypically different sometime ago."

I agree that the ancient greeks weren't "replaced". However, Dienekes motives stem from the Macedonian naming dispute. And he falsely claims that the ancient Macedonians were replaced. So let's not be too quick to pat him on the back. He's a political hack.

"Indeed, you sound very happy. I know I feel happier just reading things you write."

I am very, very happy whenever I make another acerbic comment on the internet!

"Everyone knows if we only allowed short people to reproduce there would be a tendency in terms of genes for height to diminish. Intelligence is no different from other human traits"

There is a difference between people and women, and don't shorter women have more children than taller ones?

Thank you namae nanka for pointing out that the R for males was missing a 0, the real value is -0.04, which is a lower correlation than for females.

I was willing to give him a shot until he cited Danielle Crittenden, that rich-publisher-stepdaddied little twitwat, as an authority on women's issues. Bitch got tired of buying shoes and asked mommy to get her a book deal, and that's his source on feminism?

This post makes me suspect you've had a fight with your sister.

Apparently with Kanazawa's Savanna Hypothesis, it's not quite so simple: http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/06/contra-kanazawa.html

The comments to this entry are closed.