Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Fertility

Smart Women Don't Have Babies

Ronald Bailey | 7.31.2014 12:07 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Smart Women
gocollege

OK, the headline is a bit exaggerated, but research being published by London School of Economics political scientist Satoshi Kanazawa in the November 2014 issue of Social Science Research finds in general that the higher a woman's IQ, the lower is her fertility. Here's the abstract:

Demographers debate why people have children in advanced industrial societies where children are net economic costs. From an evolutionary perspective, however, the important question is why some individuals choose not to have children. Recent theoretical developments in evolutionary psychology suggest that more intelligent individuals may be more likely to prefer to remain childless than less intelligent individuals. Analyses of the National Child Development Study show that more intelligent men and women express preference to remain childless early in their reproductive careers, but only more intelligent women (not more intelligent men) are more likely to remain childless by the end of their reproductive careers. Controlling for education and earnings does not at all attenuate the association between childhood general intelligence and lifetime childlessness among women. One-standard-deviation increase in childhood general intelligence (15 IQ points) decreases women's odds of parenthood by 21–25%. Because women have a greater impact on the average intelligence of future generations, the dysgenic fertility among women is predicted to lead to a decline in the average intelligence of the population in advanced industrial nations.

This research prompts me to speculate that the Flynn Effect which finds that average IQs have been rising around the world during the past century likely explains a good bit of the continuing global fall in total fertility rates.

If you'd like to enjoy the column that prompted the most hate email I have gotten so far, see: "Why Are People Having Fewer Kids?: Perhaps It's Because They Don't Like Them Very Much."

Disclosure: My wife and I are childless. And yes, notwithstanding the fact that she married me, she is very, very smart. And as I have earlier disclosed: My wife and I try not to flaunt our voluntarily childless lifestyle too much.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Steve Chapman: Why Bad Policies Are Their Own Worst Enemy

Ronald Bailey is science correspondent at Reason.

FertilityFertility ratesChildrenIQIntelligenceFlynn EffectScience
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (266)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

    OK, the headline is a bit exaggerated, but research being published by London School of Economics political scientist Satoshi Kanazawa

    *the sound of breaks squealing and the smell of burnt rubber*

  2. Almanian!   11 years ago

    My wife and daughter #2 (whose first kid = 3 months old) are gonna be PISSED about this...

    1. Brandon   11 years ago

      My 6-weeks-pregnant wife is not going to be happy...well, about anything for about another 6 weeks, but about this particularly.

      1. Brett L   11 years ago

        Oh, nice. Congrats.

        1. Brandon   11 years ago

          Yeah, thanks. It didn't quite go according to plan, since the plan was 'May or June would be a good time to have a baby, but we might have a hard time getting pregnant, so we'll start in June and have sex several times a day until it happens.'
          It happened some time in the first week. Then she travelled for a week and started feeling nauseous, so by the time she got back it was pee-on-a-stick time and then don't-touch-me-this-is-your-fault time. But I'm told there is a light at the end of the tunnel called the second trimester.

          1. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

            Morning sickness? Inform her of the studies that show ingestion of semen has antiemetic properties.

            1. Brandon   11 years ago

              I tried that. She informed me that at this point I have already incurred liability for child support whether or not I am still living in the house when the child is born. My wife is smart.

          2. antisocial-ist   11 years ago

            The second trimester is a dirty trick to get you to stay until the third trimester, and even worse, the birth. I swear things were much better when men stayed in a waiting room and smoked cigars. Congratulations though.

            1. Brandon   11 years ago

              Actually, I developed an intense aversion to needles and such after being sick for a long time, and the wife has seen me pass out a few times, so I have permission to stay in a waiting room. Haven't decided if I will avail myself of it, yet.

    2. Zeb   11 years ago

      Well maybe they aren't so smart if they don't grasp that statistics like this don't allow you to conclude anything about any individual.

      1. Almanian! AKA pangolin mafia   11 years ago

        derp

  3. Sevo   11 years ago

    Ron,
    The hate mail there was pretty calm, but someone missed the obvious comment about really liking kids.
    Medium rare.

    1. Ron Bailey   11 years ago

      S: By hate mail, I didn't mean the H&R comments, but the scads of emails sent my way.

      1. Sevo   11 years ago

        Got it.

  4. Episiarch   11 years ago

    Children are an expensive pain in the ass. I'm sure they are very rewarding once you become a parent, but in a world where you don't need children to help you work your farm, children start to become a luxury item that may not even be luxurious.

    Instead of studies which use dubious measurements like childhood IQ ratings, it might just be simpler to look at basic human incentives and motivations in general to explain reduced fertility rates. Basically, it's that we're wealthier and have more free time and fun things to do, but most are not so wealthy that having a child won't be a huge, massive impact on their lives. So since many don't need children to help farm or anything, they choose to enjoy their increased wealth and free time, rather than sink it all into children.

    1. Almanian!   11 years ago

      By jove, I think you've got it. ^this, I think

    2. Warty   11 years ago

      Plus they fucking shit and piss everywhere. To be a parent is to be covered in shit and piss 24/7. Only perverts like Brett would want kids.

      1. Almanian!   11 years ago

        Um - diapers?

      2. antisocial-ist   11 years ago

        True, I left my house almost 6 hours ago, before the kids even got out of bed. Somehow I'm still covered in piss, shit, and baby puke.

        1. Sudden   11 years ago

          That's your own fault for leaving your house only to spend the following 6 hours in Warty's basement.

      3. fish   11 years ago

        Plus they fucking shit and piss everywhere.

        I thought this was the whole point of "The Warty Educational Dungeon of Fun and Worldly Enlightenment"?

      4. Brett L   11 years ago

        It's more like 23/7. There's a good hour every day where I've showered after feeding and changing the poop factory where I don't have vomit, shit, or baby food on me. But I'll also get to warp his little mind to believe that squatting, eating bacon at every meal, and not respecting authority are natural.

        1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

          +1 squat more, bro

        2. Brandon   11 years ago

          Squatting and not respecting authority are natural. How often does your kid listen to you when you tell him not to shit himself?

          1. Brett L   11 years ago

            I haven't really learned his language yet, nor he mine. Its tough to tell whether or not he has any respect for my authority or not. He's got a pretty good temper when I tell him no, which he obviously got from my wife.

            1. Brandon   11 years ago

              Fair enough. But when he gets to the "Why?" stage, you'll see that lack of respect for authority is natural.

    3. Sudden   11 years ago

      Of course, what the article and research underpinning it fails to note is that one of the primary reasons the cognitively blessed choose not to have children in greater proportions than the less cognitively-inclined is that the state incentives the relatively poor to breed via redistributive programs*.

      *Please note that I don't think that is the only, or even chief, reason for the fertility of the relatively poor and less smart. I fully realize that a failure in impulse control and short-time horizon play a very large role as well.

      1. Almanian!   11 years ago

        ohhhhhhhhhh SNAP....if ya know what I'm sayin'....

        1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

          *narrows gaze*

          Jots Alanian!'s name in pun hit-book...

      2. Brett L   11 years ago

        According to a woman I once dated who worked for an agency that tried to get poor women to at least get vaccinations and such for their infants: "These people don't have jobs, they can't afford to go anywhere, what do you think they're gonna do all day?"

    4. Jimbo   11 years ago

      "Because women have a greater impact on the average intelligence of future generations, the dysgenic fertility among women is predicted to lead to a decline in the average intelligence of the population in advanced industrial nations."

      Looks like Peak Retard is in our future.

      1. Mark22   11 years ago

        "Peak" implies a subsequent decline. I wouldn't bet on that.

  5. Apple   11 years ago

    Makes sense. I've heard guys don't make passes at girls who wear glasses.

    1. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

      You heard wrong.

      1. LynchPin1477   11 years ago

        +1

      2. fish   11 years ago

        Thanks HM I'm at work?..with no opportunity to "be in my bunk"!

      3. EDG reppin' LBC   11 years ago

        Photo #16; Glasses and a ginger. Yet somehow it all works.

        1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

          Talk about lighting the Auric beacon!

          1. Auric Demonocles   11 years ago

            I was sitting outside, eating lunch with my coworkers and I thought "Hmmm, for some reason I really need to get to HnR right now".

            1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

              I knew it would work!

        2. CE   11 years ago

          2 for 2, you mean.

      4. WDATPDIM?!   11 years ago

        "Girls who wear glasses" =/= "girls on whom someone stuck a pair of glasses before taking a pic"

        1. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

          Fair enough.

        2. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

          STOP RUINING THAT FOR US!

      5. Juice   11 years ago

        The cutest are 1, 13, 16, 26, and 31.

        1. EDG reppin' LBC   11 years ago

          #10 looks like fun.

    2. Sudden   11 years ago

      Moreover, I've met enough women who wear glasses that are functionally retarded to realize there is no correlation between poor vision and high intellect.

  6. sarcasmic   11 years ago

    More important, it confirms that in the realm of government, Americans have the capacity to recognize mistakes and stop making them.

    I wouldn't go that far. This seems to have been forced onto government by the people as opposed to being initiated by government.

    1. sarcasmic   11 years ago

      Wrong article. That was weird.

      1. Almanian!   11 years ago

        that was AWESOME

  7. Bill Dalasio   11 years ago

    And smart women probably pair with smart men.

    But don't worry, Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes.

    1. Almanian!   11 years ago

      How come he talks like a fag?

      1. Bill Dalasio   11 years ago

        Howcome you don't got a tattoo?

        1. Bill Dalasio   11 years ago

          Actually, I should correct myself. It's "Whycome you ain't got no tattoo?"

          1. Almanian!   11 years ago

            Well - I ain't never seen no PLANT growin' in no TOILET....

            1. WDATPDIM?!   11 years ago

              I like munnnny.

              *stares off into space*

    2. Protagoronus   11 years ago

      Eugenics!!!

      This week when articles were turning this:
      Idiocracy showing a future inhabited by morons and saying "hey, maybe people should value intelligence and hard work more."

      Into this:
      "Idiocracy is advocating that we get the government to stop dumb people from reproducing!!!11!!"

      was a great illustration of the statist instinct of so many. Idiocracy was not advocating eugenics in any way, but they project their desire to control others onto it and that is the only outcome imaginable.

      1. Sudden   11 years ago

        There is a question in the list of OKCupid questions that is something along the lines of "Would the world be a better place if people with low IQs were not allowed to reproduce?"

        Damn near every woman I've come across has answered that question as yes (many of them whose intellect from the remainder of their profiles is sorely lacking). I answered no, and added the following commentary:

        "It might be better if they didn't (although IQ is a narrow metric for such determinations), but it would be infinitely worse if they were barred by law from reproducing (without considering the ghastly details of how such a policy would be implements)

        Frankly I'm surprised by the number of bona fide eugenicists on here."

        1. Protagoronus   11 years ago

          Nice. Anyone mention that in an intro?

          1. Sudden   11 years ago

            Nah. Women rarely open up conversations on that site, and the ones that do don't meet my exacting criteria.

            And even when a conversation gets going, they tend towards the terse and banal until some connection is established.

            1. Flaming Ballsack   11 years ago

              Sice when is "stll warm" exacting?

              1. Sudden   11 years ago

                Exactly 98.6 degrees is pretty exact. I'm not looking to catch ebola here.

          2. Auric Demonocles   11 years ago

            Hahaha. You think women on OKCupid put effort into messaging?

        2. Warty   11 years ago

          Are the eugenicist broads more DTF?

          1. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

            Are the eugenicist broads more DTF?

            Yes.

            1. EDG reppin' LBC   11 years ago

              Yeah. That program was responsible for most of James Bond's enemies and all the henchmen that work in those volcanic fortresses, etc.

              1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

                And Pro L? No, wait, he has been around a heck of a lot longer than that program..

          2. Sudden   11 years ago

            The sample of size of non-eugenicists is too small to extropolate any meaningful data. Seriously, all women are eugenicists.

        3. Brandon   11 years ago

          Did you put "Implements" in your profile? That might be costing you some smart chicks.

          1. Sudden   11 years ago

            Nah, "implemented" in the profile. My transliteration of the text was imprecise. Fucking pedant.

            1. Brandon   11 years ago

              Hey, I do very well with pedantic chicks.

      2. The Tone Police   11 years ago

        only morons reference Idiocracy and you're all going into my disposition matrix. I'm not even kidding.

        1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

          "...you're all going into my disposition matrix"

          *gulps, wipes sweat from brow*

          Obama, is that you?

  8. NeverBetter   11 years ago

    "Disclosure: My wife and I are childless."

    No. You are "Child Free"

    1. Ron Bailey   11 years ago

      NB: I will get proper locutions down some day.

      1. Sudden   11 years ago

        But how many discarded fetuses bearing the mark of the Bailey are there in the dumpster behind Planned Parenthood?

        1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

          "The Mark of Bailey"

          Is that anything like the Mark of Zorro?

          1. Sudden   11 years ago

            Was thinking more like the Mark of the Beast

    2. Brandon   11 years ago

      I prefer "Barren."

      1. Bobarian   11 years ago

        "Her womb was a barren rocky place where my seed could find no purchase"

        1. UnCivilServant   11 years ago

          Perhaps a statue is not the best match for you.

          1. CE   11 years ago

            To be fair, it is rather statuesque.

  9. sarcasmic   11 years ago

    That makes sense. I mean, attractive women cannot be intelligent. That's an accepted fact. And who wants to fuck an ugly chick? So yeah. Intelligent women don't have children because nobody wants to fuck them.

    1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

      "Campbell Brown"

      GAME. SET. MATCH.

      /prog

      1. Brandon   11 years ago

        Don't you read Diane Ravitch?

  10. albo   11 years ago

    Meh. It's an Idiocracy world anyway. The dumb and the religious are having babies, and they'll take over the world. The marching morons will prevail.

    1. Almanian!   11 years ago

      Don't lock eyes with 'em...

      1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

        Is he saying he wants cake?

        1. fish   11 years ago

          They all do.

        2. WTF   11 years ago

          They all do: they all want cake.

    2. antisocial-ist   11 years ago

      The future will be one long battle between welfare queens and bible thumpers.

      1. Sudden   11 years ago

        Those two groups need not be mutually exclusive.

    3. The Tone Police   11 years ago

      Meh. It's an Idiocracy world anyway.

      Please kill yourself.

      1. Bobarian   11 years ago

        We have already elected President Camacho.

        1. Trouser-Pod   11 years ago

          "Porn Superstar..."

          /Shudders in despair

        2. Wasteland Wanderer   11 years ago

          President Camacho would be an improvement, I think...

  11. LynchPin1477   11 years ago

    I think my wife and I will probably have a kid. But honestly, life is still a lot of fun and the sex is still awesome. We don't really want to give that up. That is the plain and simple reason.

    1. JW   11 years ago

      Fun? Sex? Your words are strange to me. From what peculiar land do you travel from?

      1. Brett L   11 years ago

        I'd say at least once every other week, the baby falls asleep before my wife and are completely exhausted. Sometimes we have fun. Or sex. I still can't figure out how my mom came from a family of four. When do you find the time after two?

        1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

          In my neighborhood, we are one of the "small" families, with only two kids... I look at these guys and wonder, m'self.

          Of course, I was winning in negotiations for #3 when I got called up for OEF, so two it ended up staying at, for good.

        2. JW   11 years ago

          Beats me. We have 2 and the only time came after bed time. Now that they're teenagers and staying up forever, there is no opportunity.

          We had a young couple for neighbors, early on wit the She-spawn. They didn't have kids yet. They were coming out with their bikes to go riding and I commented to them, "That looks like fun. I remember fun." They laughed and off they went.

          After their first kid, the husband told me that he didn't really know what I meant by that, until the baby came along. Now he did. He remembered that interaction.

          1. Brett L   11 years ago

            I know exactly what you mean.

        3. Bobarian   11 years ago

          Get the oldest one to watch the younger ones. Or duct tape.

          Don't tell CPS.

      2. Bones   11 years ago

        We had fun sex in college. But not long after we got married, we started trying to have kids, which was not fun after a few months of no success. Then it felt like work...for 4 years...until art insem worked and we had our first kid. Once she was sleeping through the night, my wife became a new person and the sex was amaaaaazing. It's like she lost all stress since all she ever wanted (she could care less about her degree and the letters after her name) was to be a mom. Amaaaaaazing.

        5 years later we intentionally had our second kid (and what we thought was our last since we needed medical assistance again) and it got even better, like her body was now completely free to go nuts.

        Well, that freedom became Oops ! #3. He's two months old and we are exhausted. Just completely exhausted. Now the sex is like, "hurry before he wakes up again."

        Riding bikes is for children and assholes. 😉

  12. sarcasmic   11 years ago

    If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life
    Never make a pretty woman your wife
    So for my personal point of view
    Get an ugly girl to marry you

    1. SQRLSY One   11 years ago

      (At least, after the Bible-thumpers & Islamofascists & other nut jobs have their way, and outlaw all birth control, the below will be true again):

      Sugar is Sweet,
      And so is Honey,
      Beat your Meat,
      And save your Money!

  13. Sudden   11 years ago

    Smart Women Don't Have Babies

    Well of course not. It's damn near tautological. Babies cannot simply be created from a void of nothingness.

    Editor's Note: TIWTNLW

  14. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

    Seems like an extinction behavior for some genetic lines? How can "we are more intelligent and will not pass along our genes" be anything than an evolutionary dead end?

    1. ant1sthenes   11 years ago

      There's a difference between low fertility and no fertility. Human fertility is pretty crap compared to a lot of other animals, but we're smart enough that a higher percentage of our offspring survive to reproduce.

      That said, I don't know if the difference between smart and dumb humans is nearly as advantageous as improved fertility, particularly in a democratic society where breeding rates provide not just evolutionary but also political power.

      1. Elspeth Flashman   11 years ago

        I am glad you pointed this out. My thinking is similar. Also, educated women - possibly - are more in touch with their fertility and the cause and effect between unprotected sex and pregnancy, as well. Humans understand this connection, other species do not, and wouldn't it make sense that the more understanding a person has, the more they see this connection?

        Also, (conversely) educated women would be probably more inclined to use other means - artificial insemination, etc - to increase their fertility if they find that their "natural" fertility is too low.

    2. Zeb   11 years ago

      There is no reason to assume that more intelligence will always be beneficial reproductively. And that is all that matters when it comes to Darwinian evolution.
      Nor is there any reason to believe that more intelligent people will always have more intelligent children or that less intelligent people will always have less intelligent children.

      1. Corning   11 years ago

        Nor is there any reason to believe that more intelligent people will always have more intelligent children or that less intelligent people will always have less intelligent children.

        But there is every reason to think that they will tend to.

      2. Mercutio   11 years ago

        "The survival value of human intelligence has never been satisfactorily demonstrated." -- Michael Crichton, The Andromeda Strain

  15. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

    Hey, Ron B. Quick question, have you had a chance to read the full-text yet?

    1. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

      Ok, I'm going to take that as either a "no" or a "Ron went out for a smoke break".

      1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

        *scene shifts to show Ron frantically scrolling through text*

  16. Lady Bertrum   11 years ago

    Children are only a financial burden for the first 18-24 years. They are a huge net benefit once they reach adulthood or near adulthood. Nothing beats the companionship of your own kids. Sorry, I really like mine and am awfully glad I had them and can't help but feel sorry for the 40+ childless single/couples. Who's going to change your diaper (or arrange to have your diaper changed) when you become geriatric and incontinent? Old people without family just seem sad and lonely.

    1. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

      Who's going to change your diaper (or arrange to have your diaper changed) when you become geriatric and incontinent?

      Gisella, the Filipina LNA?

      1. Lady Bertrum   11 years ago

        Is Gisella going to rub Gold Bond on your behind with loving care? Or, is she going to steal your coveted collection of (something) and sell it on Craigslist? Who's paying Gisella?

        1. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

          Is Gisella going to rub Gold Bond on your behind with loving care?

          Ah, you've read the many stories posted to my Literotica account I see.

          1. Lady Bertrum   11 years ago

            Hopefully, Gisella won't be 300 pounds and in need of a shave - unless you're into that.

            1. Sudden   11 years ago

              That is so thinnormative of you Lady Bertrum. I am disappoint.

            2. UnCivilServant   11 years ago

              Hopefully, Gisella won't be 300 pounds and in need of a shave - unless you're into that.

              More likely to be a robot given the lack of younger persons able to care for the aged.

              1. Sudden   11 years ago

                There will always be enough Filipinas. They're the Mexicans of Asia.

              2. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

                Robots work too.

                1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

                  I'M LOOKING AT YOU, JAPANESE ROBOTICISTS!

              3. Trials and Trippelations   11 years ago

                The robots may actually be more caring and warm than many of the CNAs wiping butts in nursing homes

    2. Lady Bertrum   11 years ago

      Also, this must mean I'm stupid (among other reasons) and I'm okay with that.

      1. Zeb   11 years ago

        If that's how you interpret this, you just might be.

    3. EDG reppin' LBC   11 years ago

      I will put a bullet in my brain before I wear adult diapers.

      1. Trials and Trippelations   11 years ago

        I've joked about wearing them on road trips to reduce travel time.

        1. EDG reppin' LBC   11 years ago

          It works!

      2. Sudden   11 years ago

        This.

        I live the sort of lifestyle that should remove me from the planet by the age of 60. I think that's the prudent move.

      3. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

        If you were reduced to a nappy wearing feeble oldster, would you still be able to make such a plan and execute it?

        I've told my wife and kids to just wheel me into one of the miserable IL Veteran's Homes and not look back, if I get to that point. I'll just ask when pudding is and stare at the nurses and wonder if they are Jaish al Mahdi operatives.

        1. EDG reppin' LBC   11 years ago

          The wife and I have a suicide pact. Kinda' creepy. But kinda' romantic.

          1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

            Gah! No thankee. Say, how do enforce that...?

            1. Brett L   11 years ago

              "I'll see you in Hell"?

            2. Brandon   11 years ago

              That's why it's a pact and not a contract.

              1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

                I dunno, the Warsaw Pact was fairly tough about enforcement...

                *slowly develops cheese eatin' grin*

          2. antisocial-ist   11 years ago

            Since seeing my grandma deal with Alzheimer's I've decided that if/ when my mind starts to go, I'll just book some African safaris. Either I'll get the lion, or he'll get me.

            1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

              +1 towing the lion

      4. WDATPDIM?!   11 years ago

        I figure that by the time I reach the Depends stage, they'll have a place I can go for a peaceful demise a la Soylent Green.

      5. Bobarian   11 years ago

        I've told my kids that I'm living into my 90s, but that I plan to start crapping my pants when I turn 70. Just to get even with em.

    4. Fr?ulein Nikki   11 years ago

      There is, of course, no guarantee your adult kids will be around for any of that.

      1. Lady Bertrum   11 years ago

        Of course. I'm not just relying on mutual respect and affection. I've got a whole carrot and stick plan that involves inheritance and guilt.

        1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

          Heh.

        2. Brett L   11 years ago

          Yeah. My parents aren't the hooker-and-blow type, but my wife and I definitely like to have good times away from home. My kids shouldn't get their hopes up unless the grandparents leave us an empire.

          1. UnCivilServant   11 years ago

            Teach self-reliance.

  17. jamesrk   11 years ago

    As the 21st century began, human evolution was at a turning point. Natural selection, the process by which the strongest, the smartest, the fastest, reproduced in greater numbers than the rest, a process which had once favored the noblest traits of man, now began to favor different traits. Most science fiction of the day predicted a future that was more civilized and more intelligent. But as time went on, things seemed to be heading in the opposite direction. A dumbing down. How did this happen? Evolution Government does not necessarily reward intelligence. With no natural predators to thin the herd, it Government began to simply reward those who reproduced the most, and left the intelligent to become an endangered species.

    1. Trials and Trippelations   11 years ago

      As I read that I kept thinking of the Kennedys. Weird

  18. GroundTruth   11 years ago

    Where are those damned Cylons when you need them?

    1. LynchPin1477   11 years ago

      Sexy Cylons or Toaster Cylons?

      1. GroundTruth   11 years ago

        No Toasters, please... it's all about love!

  19. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

    "My wife and I try not to flaunt our voluntarily childless lifestyle too much."

    ELAINE: Well, maybe we should double. I'm pretty ga-ga myself.

    JERRY: You just met the guy yesterday.

    ELAINE: Yeah, but we have a common goal.

    JERRY: A barren, sterile existence that ends when you die?

    ELAINE (happily): Yeah.

    GEORGE: And you really believe this guy doesn't want to have kids.

    ELAINE: Yeah, of course.

    JERRY: Elaine, a guy'll say anything to get a woman.

    ELAINE: Oh, please. He wouldn't say that.

    GEORGE: Elaine, I once told a woman that I coined the phrase, "Pardon my French."

    JERRY: I once told a woman that I don't eat cake 'cause it goes right to my thighs.

    GEORGE: I once told a woman that I really enjoy spending time with my family.

  20. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

    Anyway, in between posting on this thread, I gave the article a quick read through. (DOI: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.06.003 if you have online access to something like a university's library and you want to play along.) Even ignoring the many problems of Kanazawa's previous work, the study should be taken with a entire salt mine as the analysis of the findings was done within the framework of Kanazawa's pet theory the "Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis", which argues that "the human brain's difficulty with evolutionarily novel stimuli may interact with general intelligence, such that more intelligent individuals have less difficulty with such stimuli than less intelligent individuals. In contrast, general intelligence may not affect individuals' ability to comprehend and deal with evolutionarily familiar entities and situations" (Kanazawa, 2014)

    1. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

      and "evolutionarily novel entities that more intelligent individuals are better able to comprehend and deal with may include ideas and lifestyles, which form the basis of their preferences and values; it would be difficult for individuals to prefer or value something that they cannot truly comprehend. Hence, applied to the domain of preferences and values, the Hypothesis suggests that more intelligent individuals are more likely to acquire and espouse evolutionarily novel preferences and values that did not exist in the ancestral environment than less intelligent individuals" (Kanazawa, 2014)

      1. Lady Bertrum   11 years ago

        "You're throwing too many big words at me, so I'm going to assume you're disrespecting me."

        1. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

          "You're throwing too many big words at me, so I'm going to assume you're disrespecting me."

          Wait...did we date at one point in time? Probably not, as you're a redhead, right? I never dated a redhead...but still...so, so familiar. And so traumatizing.

          1. Sudden   11 years ago

            I have a theory that my function in the world is to say big words at women, thereby making them smarter and less inclined to breed.

            1. Auric Demonocles   11 years ago

              Sudden, you are here to make women less inclined to breed, but I hate to break it to you: the mechanism has nothing to do with what you say.

              1. Sudden   11 years ago

                I can neither confirm nor deny that my seminal fluid is largely comprised of HCL.

                1. Sudden   11 years ago

                  HCl. Stupid chemistry.

            2. Warty   11 years ago

              Yep, your big words is why chicks don't want to bang you. "Big". "Words".

              YOUR DONG IS SMALL

              1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

                UR DONGIN' IT WRONG!

              2. Sudden   11 years ago

                Unless you're now towing the Left's lion about Hobby Lobby ruining access to birth control, there is a considerable difference between breeding and banging. Women can still take more sacks than a Brandon Weedon behind the 2002 Texans offensive line and still not breed.

          2. Lady Bertrum   11 years ago

            Possibly, I don't remember much from the early '90's - even my hair color (it is red, though).

      2. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

        Using data from a large-scale longitudinal study conducted in the UK, Kanazawa found that "that women who intend to become parents have a mean childhood IQ of 99.94 whereas women who intend to remain childless for life have a mean childhood IQ of 105.50 (t = 7.173, df = 3544, p < .001). Similarly, men who intend to become parents have a mean childhood IQ of 100.02 whereas men who intend to remain childless for life have a mean childhood IQ of 104.35 (t = 5.310, df = 3439, p < .001)." (2014) As you can see, the data definitely disprove the null hypothesis; however Kanazawa (2014) notes that his results are very different that previous studies on the subject which "all show either that both intelligence and education have independent effects on fertility net of each other or that education entirely mediates the effect of intelligence on fertility" (Sec 6.1). Kanazawa's response to this is to handwave away the discrepancy by pointing to the brilliance of his idiosyncratic pet "Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis"; stating that since not having children is "evolutionarily novel" smart women will be attracted to it.

        There's a phrase for what Kanazawa did, it's called "special pleading".

        1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

          Now HM, are you are trying to pop Ron's bubble o' childless, excuse me, child free smug?!

          1. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

            Now HM, are you are trying to pop Ron's bubble o' childless, excuse me, child free smug?!

            Not intentionally. Bailey's a good egg.

            1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

              He does need to check this predilection for quackery, tho'.

        2. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

          since not having children is "evolutionarily novel" smart women will be attracted to it.

          How is extinguishing your own genetic line attractive, evolutionarily?

          1. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

            I think in a weird way Kanazawa is arguing that high intelligence, in and of itself, is a dysgenic factor in that it makes one less inclined to breed.

            1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

              I think ... I think you are right.

      3. LynchPin1477   11 years ago

        Out of curiosity, is this Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis used to argue that liberals are smarter and conservatives stupider?

        1. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

          Yes. Atheists too.

          here has been emerging evidence for the Hypothesis as an explanation for individual preferences and values. First, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to espouse left-wing liberalism (Deary et al., 2008 and Kanazawa, 2010a), possibly because genuine concerns with genetically unrelated others and willingness to contribute private resources for the welfare of such others ? liberalism ? may be evolutionarily novel. Even though past studies show that women are more liberal than men Lake and Breglio, 1992, Shapiro and Mahajan, 1986 and Wirls, 1986), and blacks are more liberal than whites (Kluegel and Smith, 1986 and Sundquist, 1983), the effect of childhood intelligence on adult liberalism is twice as large as the effect of sex or race (Kanazawa, 2010a).

          Second, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to be atheists (Kanazawa, 2010a), possibly because belief in higher powers, as a consequence of overinference of agency behind otherwise natural phenomena, may be part of evolved human nature (Atran, 2002, Boyer, 2001, Guthrie, 1993, Haselton and Nettle, 2006 and Kirkpatrick, 2005), and atheism may therefore be evolutionarily novel. Even though past studies show that women are much more religious than men (Miller and Hoffmann, 1995 and Miller and Stark, 2002), the effect of childhood intelligence on adult religiosity is twice as large as that of sex (Kanazawa, 2010a).

          1. LynchPin1477   11 years ago

            That's some nice confirmation bias there.

            possibly because genuine concerns with genetically unrelated others and willingness to contribute private resources for the welfare of such others ? liberalism

            Setting aside for a moment the definition of liberalism, the same could be said of religion.

            1. Zeb   11 years ago

              Yeah, the assumption that conservatives and libertarians are less concerned with the welfare of others just doesn't seem valid.

            2. Corning   11 years ago

              the same could be said of religion.

              Probably depends on the religion.

              Lots of religions are not to kind to strangers. Only a few religions have tenets that explicitly say be nice to strangers.

              I can think of only one....weird that the same people who believed in that one religion with that tenet developed liberalism.

              1. ant1sthenes   11 years ago

                Don't lots of religions/cultures have tales of gods or godlike being traveling in disguise, and generally rewarding or punishing people based on their treatment? Said stories being a myth to justify social customs of hospitality to strangers?

                1. Corning   11 years ago

                  Said stories being a myth to justify social customs of hospitality to strangers?

                  Being nice to strangers because they might be secret gods is not the same as being nice to strangers because they are your moral equals under god.

              2. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

                Liberalism developed from Buddhism?

                Who knew?

                1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

                  Yeah, I think I was able to come up with more than one fairly quickly...

                2. Corning   11 years ago

                  Liberalism developed from Buddhism?

                  Be nice to strangers who are of a certain class, race and religion is not the same thing at all.

                  1. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

                    Umm...did you read the link, bro? The first paragraph is about Hinduism, of which the rest of the essay contrasts it to Buddhism.

                    1. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

                      I mean, for fuck's sake, the concluding sentence of the first paragraph is

                      For the Buddha, hospitality should be shown to all, whatever their caste, religious affiliation or status. When Siha, a leading citizen of Vesali and a generous supporter of Jainism, became a Buddhist, the Buddha asked him to continue offering his hospitality to Jain monks who might come to his door (A.IV,185).

                    2. Corning   11 years ago

                      I like to think of Buddhism as the "Whatver Lulz" religion.

                      It never seems to have a problem with any culture it is dealing with.

                      In Japan it had no problem with brutal feudalism, in India it had no problem with the Caste system, in Vietnam it had no problem with communism, in Tibet and Nepal it had no problem with whatever backward tribalism that governed those lands and in Hollywood it has no problem whatever with some airhead actor thinks is a good idea.

                      I think it has to do with fate and reincarnation in which no matter what fucked up shit is going on in the real world does not matter. It is only noise and distraction from the goal of reaching nirvana and therefore it is OK to be OK with everything.

        2. Corning   11 years ago

          Someone should just do a study that finds Ron Baily smarter then everyone else. They he can write an article about it and we can stop reading this bullshit.

          1. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

            Give me some funding, and I'm sure I could get the proposal through the IRB.

  21. Corning   11 years ago

    So all the dumb women are having children and all the smart women are not...

    What does natural selection have to say about all this?

    ...

    It says people would be the dumbest apes in the forests if this was true....and therefor probably not true.

    1. Zeb   11 years ago

      Not necessarily. There could be diminishing returns from additional intelligence after some point.

      1. Corning   11 years ago

        There could be diminishing returns from additional intelligence after some point.

        Wrong direction.

  22. Tony   11 years ago

    Don't miss the other groundbreaking work by Satoshi Kanazawa: "Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?"

    Can Ron Bailey post a piece about the phenomenon of Ron Bailey's seemingly impenetrable preference for fringe scientists?

    1. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

      Your criticisms are entirely on point this time.

      1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

        *Agrees and frantically begins searching for other signs of the imminent Apocalypse*

        1. Sudden   11 years ago

          Some help

        2. UnCivilServant   11 years ago

          Three words: Blind Chicken, Corn

          1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

            *Reads UnCiv's post and climbs down off ledge*

        3. PD Scott   11 years ago

          Cats and dogs living together?

      2. PH2050   11 years ago

        Who is this fool, Kanazawa, that dares to insult my Nubian princesses?!

        Have at thee, miscreant!

    2. Corning   11 years ago

      Tony...

      I don't know what to say.

      Good work.

      ....

      Tony was right about something and he even put up a good example why he was right and what he is right about goes against his misanthropic statism....today is going to be a weird fuckin day.

      1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

        going to be???

        I think this qualifies it as "is".

    3. Sidd Finch v2.01   11 years ago

      [Theodore Dalrymple quote about communist propaganda]

  23. WDATPDIM?!   11 years ago

    Disclosure: My wife and I are childless.

    Dude. Same here. High five.

  24. Rasilio   11 years ago

    Yeah my wife and I are making up for a few of you since we've got 4 of the damn things.

    Also I hate to say this but some of the "morons" who are breeding are not actually dumb. One of the smartest people I have ever met is my Brother in Law, however he is infected with a particular strain of religiosity that has him and my sister in the Quiverful movement. Last I heard they had 10 kids. My sister is no dummy either, she is not as smart as my brother and I (both of us have IQ's in the 140 - 160 range, she's around 110) but she has plenty of "smart" in her genetic makeup too.

    1. Brandon   11 years ago

      Weird. Are you a twin?

      1. Rasilio   11 years ago

        Uhhhh no

        1. Brandon   11 years ago

          I ask because I am, and my brother and I both have IQ's in that same range, and my older sister's is about the same as yours, and she has a sizable brood with her electrical engineer husband. It's an odd confluence.

    2. Zeb   11 years ago

      Is there any claim that only stupid people have lots of children?

      1. Rasilio   11 years ago

        No but there was a claim that smart people weren't

  25. Fluffy   11 years ago

    Here's the thing about voluntary childlessness:

    There are powerful biological drives that lead parents to do fairly extraordinary things for their offspring. Those drives express themselves as emotional attachment.

    But you only can live the experience of those drives once you actually have a child. So until you have a child, you don't actually know what your emotional reaction to child-rearing will be.

    Picture, if you will, a scenario where you only experienced your sex drive after the first time you had sex. A lot of people would never have sex, right? Because they "wouldn't see what the big deal was".

    That's what childless people who claim they're "sure" they don't want children are like. They're like virgins claiming they "know" they don't like blowjobs.

    1. Stormy Dragon   11 years ago

      I'm not sure that "there are biologic boobytraps hidden deep in your psyche that will brainwash you into willingly enslaving yourself on behalf of your children if you only give them the chance to go off" is quite the advertisment for parenthood you think it is.

      1. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

        Any parent that willingly enslaves himself or herself on behalf of his or her offspring is a horrible parent raising a brat.

      2. Fluffy   11 years ago

        "I'm not sure that 'there are hidden biologic boobytraps hidden deep in your psyche that will make you feel really good while a vile substance shoots out of your penis' is quite the advertisement for blowjobs that you think it is."

        "I'm not sure that 'there are hidden biologic boobytraps hidden deep in your psyche that will fill you with satisfaction while your body turns a cheesesteak sub into shit after you force it down your gullet' is quite the advertisement for eating that you think it is."

        Come on, man, get serious.

    2. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

      Finally, someone explains my sister in law and her husband.

      BIL used to react to children like they were mobile containers of radioactive waste... finally knocked up the SIL and next thing you know they have kid two and he is all in favor.

    3. WDATPDIM?!   11 years ago

      Perhaps a better analogy would be claiming you're sure you wouldn't enjoy life as a eunuch when you still have your balls?

      1. Fluffy   11 years ago

        That is a very poor analogy.

        On my side I have the experience of literally billions of people.

        To the extent that there's a documentary record of the preferences of eunuchs, they pretty much all agree that being a eunuch sucks.

        And then there's the simple fact that evolution hard-wires in "satisfaction responses" for every other thing necessary for survival and propagation of genes. Why would this be different?

        1. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

          they pretty much all agree that being a eunuch sucks

          -1 Sunflower Manual

    4. SugarFree   11 years ago

      "The joys of shooting yourself in the head are unknowable until you pull the trigger."

    5. HazelMeade   11 years ago

      The strange phenomenon and Fluffy and I agreeing about almost everything.

  26. Paul.   11 years ago

    Um, wasn't this covered extensively in Idiocracy?

    Anyhoo. I think it's pretty safe to say that... ok, let's just dump the 'IQ' thing for a minute, but anyone with bangin' career opportunities and a demanding work life-- a place where smarter people are going to tend to end up, are going to probably minimize their childcare footprint.

    My (ex)wife and I chose to have children late, and only one. Lord knows I'm not claiming to be smarter than anyone but we were (I'm no longer) working professionals with careers.

  27. Juice   11 years ago

    "My wife and I are childless..."

    If you did not intend to have children, then why get legally married? To me, it's the only reason to go through with the hell of a wedding.

    1. PH2050   11 years ago

      Ha, nice.

    2. WDATPDIM?!   11 years ago

      Ask teh gays.

    3. Paul.   11 years ago

      I agree with this. The state provides some contractual cover for married partners when children are involved. If you have a child and you're unmarried, the man is reduced to a sperm donor.

      But if you're never going to have kids, why fucking bother?

    4. Zeb   11 years ago

      You can get married without the hell of a wedding if you want to.

      1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

        +1 Judge, Courthouse and out the door

        1. Paul.   11 years ago

          -50% of your assets in the divorce!

          1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

            True, but has nothing to do with getting married without a wedding!

    5. Seamus   11 years ago

      If you have substantially different income levels, it lowers your tax bill (though not so much as it used to, when the tax code basically treated you as each of you was an individual earning one half of what you both earned, so the high earner didn't get hammered with a high marginal tax rate).

  28. Brandon   11 years ago

    I honestly don't see parenting as nearly as much of a commitment as it's made out to be. My parents both worked full time, and I will follow their example. It's a big commitment for the first few years, but once the kids are potty trained and able to ride bikes, they can pretty much entertain themselves.

    1. Lady Bertrum   11 years ago

      *Shhhhh (holds finger to lips). no one tell him. We need another member.*

      1. Brandon   11 years ago

        Wife's at 6 weeks. Too late to turn back now.

        1. Sudden   11 years ago

          Nuh-uh

          1. Brandon   11 years ago

            Legalities aside, too late to turn back now. neither of us are personally pro-abortion.

    2. UnCivilServant   11 years ago

      Watch out for the Busybodies who call CPS on any and all free-range children.

      1. Brandon   11 years ago

        Yeah, my neighborhood is almost entirely free-rangers. Old people who've owned their homes since they were built in the 60's and a couple of young couples with toddlers who are both libertarian-leaning preppers.

    3. Bobarian   11 years ago

      but once the kids are potty trained and able to ride bikes have jobs and spouses and kids of their own, they can pretty much entertain themselves.

      Let me help you out.

  29. Ken Shultz   11 years ago

    "This research prompts me to speculate that the Flynn Effect which finds that average IQs have been rising around the world during the past century likely explains a good bit of the continuing global fall in total fertility rates."

    I suspect this has to do with economic growth and the increasing opportunities for women to participate in the workforce around the world.

    Certainly, it has been shown, cross-culturally, that the more women are given an opportunity to contribute to the welfare of the family outside the home, the fewer children they choose to have.

    I suspect that the more intelligent a woman is, the more likely she is to be able to find economic opportunities outside the home. Thus, the IQ may be a significant secondary factor, statistically, but it's the economic opportunities for women that are driving the bus.

    It's just like it was in the U.S. I can remember hearing older people argue in the '70s about whether women, generally, preferred to have children or a career. What followed led me to Shultz's Fifth Law of Social Dynamics, which clearly states, "When women are confronted with mutually exclusive alternatives, their first choice is almost invariably both".

    Before the 70s, when women were mostly housekeepers, they had more children. When they started having careers, they chose to both have half as many as they had before--and a career.

    1. Ken Shultz   11 years ago

      Environmentalists, by the way, should take note. If economic growth and the opportunities it brings for women are an important part of what makes women choose to have fewer children--around the world--then economic growth is an important environmental issue.

    2. PH2050   11 years ago

      Pretty sure the Flynn Effect is bullshit and Flynn himself even doubted it.

  30. Zillamod   11 years ago

    This is an academic report that should and will rightfully sustain some academic challenge. LSE may as well have said the women you can pin down and put a baby in are dumber. There are journals who will waste their time combing over the "research" to verify scientific process was adhered to.

    We're still fighting the conservative male entitlement to their breeding stock.

    Its also well known you can pay an academic to say whatever you want so long as there is a big fat grant attached. Remember how University researchers verified that "the negro" was only 3/5ths human and okay be treated as livestock? Same situation.

    LSE should stick to economics. Fertility isn't their strong suit.

    1. Sidd Finch v2.01   11 years ago

      C+

      1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

        You are in a generous mood today, yes?

        D+

        1. Zillamod   11 years ago

          I'm actually curious why LSE is doing a fertility study. Are LSE econ grads having trouble getting pregnant? Are they trying to defend their childless lifestyles? What's the driving force behind a study like this? What are they trying to prove?

          The questions pulled up from a study like this try to undermine people socially for having children! Do you think we wouldn't see the immature intent here? Children are already treated like an invasive species by selfish adults. Pregnant women are routinely verbally and physically assaulted by jealous bystanders. Why aren't we talking about the spontaneous event of intellectual abandonment when self-centered adults encounter pregnant women or small children? That's would require some self exams by LSE of the nature of the people they retain as educators don't you think?

          1. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

            Pregnant women are routinely verbally and physically assaulted by jealous bystanders.

            Wait, what?

            1. Zillamod   11 years ago

              Yes. Didn't you know? Being offensively confronted by all sorts of weirdos when the belly starts sticking out is part of being inducted into parenthood.

              1. Ken Shultz   11 years ago

                You strike me as one of those people who, maybe, gets offended a lot.

          2. Ken Shultz   11 years ago

            "Pregnant women are routinely verbally and physically assaulted by jealous bystanders."

            Say what?!

            1. antisocial-ist   11 years ago

              Non-pregnant women routinely run up to pregnant women and grab their uteri.

  31. FreeRadical   11 years ago

    My IQ is off the ch... a hem, is relatively high, and I wouldn't give up having my kids for anything.

    1. Brandon   11 years ago

      Mine is pretty far to the right on the bell curve, and I am looking forward to it.

  32. HazelMeade   11 years ago

    I'm going to piss a bunch of people off by saying this.

    It might seem smart not to have kids, if you think they will interfere with other life goals. i.e. career, travelling the world, enjoying life.

    But the question you have to ask yourself is: Are you really experiencing what life has to offer if you essentially cut yourself off from experiencing the central defining feature of life itself - procreation?

    1. Brandon   11 years ago

      This. Unfortunately, you don't know what will make you happy until you've done it, and in life you only get one chance at some things. I've met childless people who were happy at 60, and others who were miserable. Same with child-ful(?) couples. However, my wife got super horny once she went off birth control, so I am much more open to the idea of natural family planning than I was a few months ago.

    2. Lord Humungus   11 years ago

      and the sex is good too...

    3. Paul.   11 years ago

      Speaking for myself, I got married and had kids late in life. Up until that moment, I didn't very much (nearly none at all) thought into having kids or the experience of being a parent.

      Once I surrend... got married the experience of being a father has been the best of my life. I wouldn't trade it for all the world.

      Basically, my experience was dangerously close to what Fluffy stated above-- I experienced no drive to have a kid, but once I had one it's been a fantastic experience.

      Having said that, I have zero desire to have more. Because [good] parenting is hard work.

      1. sarcasmic   11 years ago

        I didn't get married until my 30s, and I never planned to have any children. Thankfully me and my wife weren't that careful, and now I'm a father. Wouldn't trade it for the world.

  33. Paul.   11 years ago

    The thing no one is commenting on is that if this study holds water, the smarter women of society are withholding pension contributors from the bottom of the pyramid. So that means the smartest women are going to be responsible for us becoming Greece.

    1. Bobarian   11 years ago

      Greek style lovin has something to do with it too, then.

      1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

        I knew someone would hit that hanging curveball right over the plate...

  34. RickCaird   11 years ago

    I seriously doubt this idea has any accuracy. You might argue they have fewer children, but not no children. I know a lot of smart women with children. Those without children have other interests.

    1. Brandon   11 years ago

      Like rug munching?

  35. CE   11 years ago

    This research prompts me to speculate that the Flynn Effect which finds that average IQs have been rising around the world during the past century likely explains a good bit of the continuing global fall in total fertility rates.

    It seems like the opposite effect should be happening. If lower-IQ women are having way more babies than high-IQ women, and IQ is hereditary, average IQs should be falling. One or the other observation is wrong.

  36. cavalier973   11 years ago

    Heh. Smart wimmins are dumb.

  37. jdgalt   11 years ago

    On its face this appears to prove that mothers do not pass on their IQ (good or bad) to their children, either by heredity or by child-rearing practices including teaching. Because if they did, then the fact that women with below-average IQs are producing most of the children should cause the average IQ in the population to fall, not rise, over time.

    I wonder what relationship, if any, exists between the IQs of *fathers* and their children.

  38. Mickey Rat   11 years ago

    High intelligence in women is a negative survival trait?

    Maybe the Kzinti are onto something.

  39. Roger McKinney   11 years ago

    25% is a pretty small effect. The authors of the research need to read McCloskey's book "The Cult of Statistical Significance: How the Standard Error Costs Us Jobs, Justice, and Lives." Adjusted for the small effect, as McCloskey suggests, the statistical significance would probably disappear. In other words, they don't have a story.

    But given the benefit of the doubt, the real story is why the vast majority of very intelligent women have children. Why fixate on the tiny minority of intelligent women who don't? The exception proves the rules that most intelligent women have children.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

She Got a Permit for Her Chickens. Now the City Is Fining Her $80,000.

C. Jarrett Dieterle | 6.28.2025 6:30 AM

'We Can't Let These Sheep Go'

Fiona Harrigan | From the July 2025 issue

New Orleans City Council Considers Ordinance To Adopt Real-Time Facial Recognition Technology

Ronald Bailey | 6.27.2025 5:00 PM

Clarence Thomas Undermines Free Speech in Porn Site Age-Verification Case

Damon Root | 6.27.2025 4:00 PM

America Has Plenty of Experience With Government-Run Stores, and It Isn't Pretty

Joe Lancaster | 6.27.2025 3:40 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!