[numanist]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/articl...oints.html

Quote:

Historian Lucy Worsley caused a furore when she remarked last year that she had been 'educated out of the natural reproductive function'.

Now it seems she might have had a point, after a new study has revealed a clear correlation between intelligence and childlessness - with cleverer women more likely to choose not to have a family.

The study, which was conducted by Satoshi Kanazawa, a researcher at the London School of Economics, found that a woman's urge to have children decreases by a quarter for every 15 extra IQ points

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/articl...z2bD691JGF
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

I don't know if this is feminist bonk, or what? However, it wouldn't entirely surprise me either way; most "intelligent" or "educated" women supplant their mothering instincts, in order to become a "career woman". I know some of you here put great emphasis on settling down with a very intelligent women, but I for one would be content with a women with average or slightly above average intelligence. I'll tell you why: there is this concept in statistics that is called regression to the mean, which insists that all outliers eventually even out with time. So, two parents of average intelligence give birth to a woman of genius intelligence (140 iq +). Hypothetically, lets say that women finds a mate down the road of the same intelligence; they then reproduce and have another daughter. The chance that daughter has the same level of IQ of them is almost infinitesimally small: something like 2% or so. The child will more than likely have an IQ in the 124 - 130 range, which is still not bad! However, that trend will continue for a period of time, until their IQ eventually bottoms out at 105-110 or so.

Living in a well-to-do neighborhood, I see this time and time again: children never fulfill their parents level education or success. I once knew a lawyer who had a son who failed miserably at school: he had to go to summer school a lot, and he couldn't even manage to pass bush-league community college classes. Furthermore, I also knew a son of an anesthesiologist, who drifted through life, working odd menial jobs. I personally have a family of engineers on one side (4 of 5 brothers), with the exception of my uncle who always earned mediocre grades in school - despite extra help.

http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/11/regress...nd-iq.html

[Basil Ransom]

Your understanding of regression to the mean is somewhat faulty. If regression to the mean were complete, there would be no shifts in population traits, whether it's finch beak size or height or IQ.

The IQ of her greater family plays a role - all else equal, a higher IQ family for a woman will mean higher average IQ for her offspring. And, there's always a DISTRIBUTION, people above and below the expected value. If you took a population and made say the tallest quarter breed only amongst themselves, and did that for every generation, the top quarter of the population would get increasingly tall. (Presumably there'd be some limit.) IQ is no different.

Assortative mating (eg tall people breeding with tall people) doesn't increase the averages, just the variance.

Interesting study, but actions are more important than 'urges.' I don't think the actual fertility rate is quite as disparate between high and low-medium IQ people. Higher IQ is more prevalent among the upper classes, as is marriage. So that probably goes some way to explaining the chasm between urges and actions.

[cardguy]

I love Satoshi Kanazawa. Everything he publishes is Red Pill as fuck.

[The Beast1]

While I agree with the assumption made here, how does one quantify "maternal urges"?

[numanist]

Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar, who came from a poor single mother. Sir Isaac Newton came from simpleton parents who couldn't read or even write their own names. I'm just saying, there is something to this concept of regression to the mean.

[V6Wrestler]

I have a theory that children's IQ is highly dependant on the father's interests.

I have noticed anecdotally that men who take part in highly analytical endeavours produce highly intelligent children. This may explain why some average IQ women (after all many men breed down in terms of intellect) can produce very high IQ boys.

I always thought my theory would have no scientific backing, but when you look into areas such as epigenetics you will see how you lead your lives will change the genetic make up of your offspring.

Although I wonder if having an IQ >120 is an advantage or a disadvantage. The social downsides of very high IQ negates any career gain. Whereas if you have high but no excessively high IQ such as 120 you can get all the top jobs whereas still have a succesful social life.

[Suits]

(08-06-2013 02:51 PM)V6Wrestler Wrote:  

I have a theory that children's IQ is highly dependant on the father's interests.

I have noticed anecdotally that men who take part in highly analytical endeavours produce highly intelligent children. This may explain why some average IQ women (after all many men breed down in terms of intellect) can produce very high IQ boys.

I always thought my theory would have no scientific backing, but when you look into areas such as epigenetics you will see how you lead your lives will change the genetic make up of your offspring.

Although I wonder if having an IQ >120 is an advantage or a disadvantage. The social downsides of very high IQ negates any career gain. Whereas if you have high but no excessively high IQ such as 120 you can get all the top jobs whereas still have a succesful social life.

My IQ is too high.

I lose all attraction for 95% of women the moment they open their mouths.

[Samseau]

If regression to the mean were true, then why do Jews have higher than average intelligence?

[Samseau]

Additionally, if regression to the mean is a big deal, why do intelligent men consistently get produced each generation from the most unlikely of places?

Quote:

Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar, who came from a poor single mother. Sir Isaac Newton came from simpleton parents who couldn't read or even write their own names.

It seems to me that group selection has a much larger role in producing genetic traits than most would care to admit.

[Mack Four]

Higher intelligence tracks alongside careerism in women since most teachers are women. A girl in school who shows aptitude is encouraged strongly toward higher education and away from pregnancy. Over time this becomes a politically based view of her own self worth and the emotional attatchment to her self interest overrides her intinct to procreate.

The concept is similar ro sexual repression whereby men try to intellectualize and rationalize away their sexual desires only to have them manifest in other, often bizzare, behaviors. In the case of career women this manifestation tends to take the form of cat or plant collection.

[numanist]

Quote:

If regression to the mean were true, then why do Jews have higher than average intelligence?

It is said that Ashkenazi Jews have a high IQ because there were selective pressures within the Jewish community. For one, usury (banking) was banned among Christians, and was almost solely practiced by Jews; banking is often a high iq occupation (lots of number crunching), and it also was quite lucrative. In medieval times, it was quite the status symbol to have lots of kids. So, many Jews who were bankers had lots of kids, which subsequently lead to a rise in their IQ scores generation after generation.

Furthermore, Catholics banned the most educated and intelligent members of society from procreating: priests and monks. Erstwhile, Jews allowed procreation among Rabbis.

[Therapsid]

(08-06-2013 11:26 PM)numanist Wrote:  

Quote:

If regression to the mean were true, then why do Jews have higher than average intelligence?

It is said that Ashkenazi Jews have a high IQ because there were selective pressures within the Jewish community. For one, usury (banking) was banned among Christians, and was almost solely practiced by Jews; banking is often a high iq occupation (lots of number crunching), and it also was quite lucrative. In medieval times, it was quite the status symbol to have lots of kids. So, many Jews who were bankers had lots of kids, which subsequently lead to a rise in their IQ scores generation after generation.

Furthermore, Catholics banned the most educated and intelligent members of society from procreating: priests and monks. Erstwhile, Jews allowed procreation among Rabbis.

Ashkenazi Jews have high IQ's. Compared to East Asians, they have high verbal IQ's in particular. Whereas Asians have high visuospatial IQ's.

The result shouldn't be surprising: Jews excel in language-oriented professions like law, academia, media, and politics. Asians excel in mathematics, engineering, and science.

When you think about it this way, the trajectory of the U.S. and other Western nations makes sense. Since the 60's, the U.S. has shifted from manufacturing to knowledge based, that is more verbal professions.

[Samseau]

(08-06-2013 11:26 PM)numanist Wrote:  

Quote:

If regression to the mean were true, then why do Jews have higher than average intelligence?

It is said that Ashkenazi Jews have a high IQ because there were selective pressures within the Jewish community. For one, usury (banking) was banned among Christians, and was almost solely practiced by Jews; banking is often a high iq occupation (lots of number crunching), and it also was quite lucrative. In medieval times, it was quite the status symbol to have lots of kids. So, many Jews who were bankers had lots of kids, which subsequently lead to a rise in their IQ scores generation after generation.

Furthermore, Catholics banned the most educated and intelligent members of society from procreating: priests and monks. Erstwhile, Jews allowed procreation among Rabbis.

The point is that regression to the mean isn't a very powerful force compared to other ones.

If there is a selective pressure for humans to pick smart partners to have smart children so they will do better in school, then this too should have a strong effect of creating higher IQ population over time.

Of course, the problem is that most people simply avoid having children altogether in order to avoid any extra work. But in theory, the selective pressures to create a higher IQ population are already in place.