GNXP readers do not breed
No surprise. But the data are rather stark. Excluding those who gave “No Answer” and “Lots” here are the mean number of children of readers by age group from the survey, with the mean number of children in the age groups from the GSS for whites in the parentheses:
18-25 = 0 (0.32)
26-35 = 0.25 (1.36)
36-45 = 0.93 (2.17)
46-65 = 1.02 (2.63)
65+ = 1.88 (2.65)
I thought I would post this since The Inductivist is giving Greg props for his large family. I did exclude the one individual who said they had “lots” of children in the 18-25 age group. I wish Bryan Caplan the best of luck in evangelizing for reproduction, but it’s going to be a tough sell.
The raw numbers are below in a table.
Number of Children 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-65 65+ 0 97 131 44 37 5 1 0 14 21 25 1 2 0 6 17 17 5 3 0 3 9 6 4 4 0 1 1 2 1 5 0 0 0 1 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0
Fascinating statistics. And surprising. I wouldn’t have thought I’d be so far from the mean.
I read GNXP several times a week, but I somehow missed the survey.
I’m 35, male, and have five kids. 1290 SAT’s in 1991. I have a four-year biology degree, but no grad school.
I’m a lab drone and have an IQ of 128– both things which, it seems, would tend to lower the number of children I’m likely to have. I’m also a bit crazy, which probably tends to increase it.
I didn’t fill out the survey.
My wife and I had our 2 sons well before I started reading GNXP (pre-internet too). The trick is to breed, then read. Too many GNXPers must be reading about breeding.
People with a wife and kids don’t have time to waste reading blogs.
The trick is to breed, then read
I beg to differ :-). Not sure exactly how long GNXP has been around but at least two and maybe all three of my kids postdate my first encounter with the site.
Anyway, kids are a lot of work. I can understand why sensible people try to leave the kid production to others.
Yeah, this was pretty obvious. I pointed to it on Friday. It’s too bad that it’s the case but anyone who gets out often enough sees it. (Or you can stay indoors and just watch Idiocracy.)
I happen to have as an acquaintance an “African American Gentleman” in his mid-20s who works as a Greeter in a small family eatery. I saw him walking with a kid one day so in the interest of empathic interaction (that’s what we high-IQ types call “conversation” :-) I asked if the kid was his son.
“Which kid.”
“The kid you were walking with in the mall on Friday”
“was he dark or light?”
“uh, I don’t know, I mean…”
“I got seven kids.”
Yes he does, from three or four different women, none of whom is his wife.
And lest you believe that this vignette is not instructive beyond its immediate example, I’m sorry to say that I can share half a dozen other vignettes that aren’t greatly dissimilar.
mnuez
Totally OT – this new comment system whereby the ENTIRE PAGE goes all bobblehead as the comment is written is annoying as hell. Haloscan already sucks on account of it opening a separate comment window rather than portraying the comments underneath the original post (which is important for bookmarking, scrapbooking and other reasons) and this just makes the matter worse.
People with a wife and kids don’t have time to waste reading blogs.
true. but how do you explain the 65+ contingent? the difference is smaller, but still there.
Totally OT – this new comment system whereby the ENTIRE PAGE goes all bobblehead as the comment is written is annoying as hell.
can you elaborate? browser, OS, etc.
Asolutely, fucking depressing.
Unfortunately I’m unable to elaborate using any technical terms but I suppose the best way to see what I’m referring to (assuming of course this isn’t exclusive to me computer, and it would seem that it shouldn’t be) would be to place your cursor in the comment box and then hit “Enter” a bunch of times.
It seems that the “preview” feature above the comment box causes the box itself to shift downward as each new line in the “preview” is completed.
As an aside, Razib, do you facebook? I’ve recently opened a facebook account and It would be great to bring some over some friends from the blogosphere. In the event that you do facebook, please email me at mnuezblue@gm… being as my christian (facebookean) name is obviously not mnuez.
I’m a reader, who also didn’t fill out the survey. I’ve got 5 kids like Cochrane also. I go to church too, if you want to figure that in. I’ve got a wife, kids, a very demanding job, and no time to waste reading blogs, but I do it anyway. GNXP is a great timewaster.
I think it would be interesting to know more about which ones are breeding. Are there correlations with political views? Are their correlations with religious background? Etc? Perhaps multi-dimensional correlations? (Like when the person has such-and-such political view and comes from such-and-such political background, then tend to “X”.)
Good thing the CSV file is available to look those things up.
P.S. Guys in my family tend to breed later in life and to wives much much younger than them. (Something I’m sure agnostic will be proud of :-) )
Give me a couple of years, my wife & I will be starting a family soonish (we’re both 30).
Ben
Give me a couple of years, my wife & I will be starting a family soonish (we’re both 30).
Meaning you’ve given the wrong half of the bell curve a 15-year head start. Ben, Ben, how could you?
Throwing out the 18-25, group it’s 60% with no children. You can conclude that the blog appeals to the unfit who do not reproduce or considering other characteristics of the respondents, that Idiocracy is inevitable.
How I learned to love demographic decline.
Having a third child was the most overt political statement my wife and I made (although politics was not the purpose for having the child). We crossed that magical line that makes the overeducated crowd give you a strange look that signals, “Oh, you are one of them”. Being a woman, my wife has felt the brunt of the feminist disdain.
Gene Berman, I used to feel the same way; depressed at demographic decline. Now I take solace in the fact that the people who are looking down their noses at us are evolutionary dead ends.
Here’s a thought I had that helped turn me into large-family conservative: My academic colleagues are telling me that I hurt: women, people of color, the Third World, homosexuals, animals, and the environment. The greatest service I can do for the world, therefore, is to kill myself. SWPL-ers are doing that very thing, only to their family line.
If it’s any consolation I plan on having two more kids…
meh. so what if i’m an evolutionary dead end? i’ll be dead. should i care what happens to the world as long as it’s not while i’m alive?
for those who have plenty of kids, great! do whatever makes u happy. but there’s no way i’m having 5 kids just so i can potentially help ward off the “coming idiocracy.”
if u wanna compete w/ octomom, be my guest. i don’t care enough. not nearly enough. switch up the incentives so that i’ll benefit in my own lifetime and i’ll reconsider.
I think you hit the nail on the head there wongba. There has to be some sort of worthwhile incentives for smart people to have more kids while they’re able to, à la Singapore’s positive eugenic program.
There has to be some sort of worthwhile incentives for smart people to have more kids while they’re able to, à la Singapore’s positive eugenic program.
that failed. i think it boosted fertility some, but not really enough to change the long term trajectory.
Inductivist- I went down many of those roads of thought (eg, environmentalism) and came to the same conclusion; as a white guy suicide would be the most altruistic action I could take. I too eventually became that rare breed, a conservative academic.
Wonga, in many ways you are right. I just came down to my man cave to avoid two screaming kids and type away on the keyboard. The alternative you present is nihilistic and hedonistic and is very enticing. However, my guess is that you do not truly take such a view and that you actually have values. By valuing something aren’t you hoping it transcends your existence? Happiness is way overrated.
I guess I came to the conclusion that such a view of life was of no value. I could be fooling myself and of course missing out on a great deal of fun, but at a sociological level the idea that wongba’s choices are individual and are of just as much value of someone who responsibly reproduces is problematic.
Taking that to the next level as many do, that choices to reproduce are bad (sexist, racist, against the environment, etc.) is clearly the sign of a group of people that are suicidal. So for those that take the view that my reproduction is one of these isms I say good riddance. While that may sound mean I say it because I value the traditions of Western Civilization and my children and hope both continue after I die.
I’m guessing many of the readers here are nerds who have trouble attracting women. I’d say it’s a good thing they’re not breeding, even if they have high IQ’s, b/c they have bad looks and social skills. Do you really want the world to be full of ugly people?
…at a sociological level the idea that wongba’s choices are individual and are of just as much value of someone who responsibly reproduces is problematic.
Perhaps, but at a philosophical level the very idea of “responsible” reproduction is, to some of us, morally problematic. One may value the traditions of western civilization without presuming to speak for the child who never had a choice.
Sociological suicide is a neat metaphor, but procreation absolutely guarantees suffering for those who are forced to life. Every time. I think this is bad, no matter who inherits the earth.
I’m guessing many of the readers here are nerds who have trouble attracting women.
I think this is likely true. Like it or not, women do not select for high IQ directly. Maybe indirectly through income, but nowadays as women become more indepedent, even that is changing. A tall, tanned, muscular guy with an IQ of 90 will do much better with women than a skinny, pasty average height guy with an IQ of 130. If I had to guess, i would think GNXP readers skew towards the latter group.
Now, being that you are all hbd realists, why is the outcome of this study a surprise?
I’m guessing many of the readers here are nerds who have trouble attracting women
Even if this is true (and I’m skeptical, but I’ll leave a full-throated defense to someone else…), it actually doesn’t have much bearing on the number of kids a guy might have. Point being, a guy who wants to have kids doesn’t have to be some chiseled chick magnet; he just has to not be excessively picky. Only people who are quite far down on the attractiveness scale are really shut out to the extent that *no one* is going to be willing to settle down with them.
Unfortunately, I think you’re exactly right DionneinAfrica. It goes back to one of my favorite articles on GXNP, because it explains so much: the bellcurve between IQ and sex. People between 75-90 IQ have the most, with massive dropoff at the tails.
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php
Assuming the average IQ of GNXP readers is somewhere around 110-115 (gauging from the number of university and graduate students), it’s no surprise they have few children. It must be noted too that IQ is correlated with so many other things, such as lifestyle choices and interests, so it’s not just high IQ that lowers your chance of sex, but all the social repercussions that come with it.
I used to feel the same way; depressed at demographic decline. Now I take solace in the fact that the people who are looking down their noses at us are evolutionary dead ends.
During a conversation with my gastroenterologist brother-in-law, a man with four children, I reminded him that many educated folks have few kids and disapprove of people like us. He answered, “We’ve got ‘em right where we want ‘em.”
My guess is that women do select directly for intelligence, it may just be someone who is at least a certain level maybe 110-120 IQ or they use themselves as an anchor and want someone slightly above themselves. Certainly women care and don’t want a mate who is mentally retarded. I also select for intelligence in women and would have difficulty dating someone who is stupid.
Other research suggests a positive relationship between intelligence and sexual selection. Geoffrey Miller suggests that intelligence developed in humans because it is sexually selected for. But he mixes up intelligence and creativity and I think he over states the case as it is quite noticeble that the men in physics departments aren’t studs.
On a related note, intelligence could be a signal of overall fitness:
Kanazawa, Satoshi and Kovar, JL (2004) Why beautiful people are more intelligent. Intelligence, 32 (3). pp. 227-243. ISSN 0160-2896
@DionneinAfrica, you said…
I’m guessing many of the readers here are nerds who have trouble attracting women.
I think this is likely true. Like it or not, women do not select for high IQ directly. Maybe indirectly through income, but nowadays as women become more indepedent, even that is changing. A tall, tanned, muscular guy with an IQ of 90 will do much better with women than a skinny, pasty average height guy with an IQ of 130. If I had to guess, i would think GNXP readers skew towards the latter group.
Now, being that you are all hbd realists, why is the outcome of this study a surprise?
If what you are suggesting is correct (and if the GNXP readers are representative of high IQ people in general) this may put a selective pressure on high IQs population to become more muscular and taller (on average). (Since they’d be the only ones breeding… or at least breeding the most.) Perhaps high IQ mesomorphs will become the dominant form (in the high IQ population).
Do you really want the world to be full of ugly people?
lol. Biology and math are adult virgin breeding grounds. so to speak.
I’m going to dig around for attractiveness data soon and see if I can unearth some fun facts.
Plenty of ugly people have broods already.
Also, ugliness is associated with less intelligence and criminality.
How about attractiveness vis-a-vis corporate and bureaucratic criminality?
The highly intelligent seem very adept at acts of a skilled but unknosher nature. Whomever it is that eventually presses that red button of final destruction of all that lives, I’ve little doubt that it will be someone well to the right on the bell distribution. This sorts of “fun” correlational studies really waste scientific funds for lopsided science, imo.
In modern times you need to also realize the widening gap between sex and reproduction. As contraceptives improve, both males and females think they can play with the stupid cheesecake/stud muffin without reproductive consequences.
Often discovering that they should have paid attention to the small print on their contraceptives of choice.
However, deliberate reproductive choices are an increasing % of all pregnancies, especially of the more intelligent women. As such they factor in such biologically irrelevant data as the cost of a college education and the state of the DJIA, relative to the college funds of their already existing children.
How many families decided they couldn’t afford another child, in the last six months?
If the Federal government started covering all or most college costs, how many families would suddenly decide to have another child or two?
And would those families, affected by both positive and negative economic news be above or below average IQ?
As a 19 year old GNXP reader, i pledge to continue the crusade against feminism, environmentalism and all things left wing by having atleast 3 children, delightful little carbon based bundles of pollution that they are
AJ: if you assume that GNXP is only for right-wing views, then you’re wrong. Take a look at the census data, even if the split is 33% vs. 20% on GNXP Classic, it hardly makes it unanimous. I don’t think you’ll get much sympathy for your scientifically heedless comments about environmentalism either.
Scientifically heedless, Orion? I didn’t make any scientific claims, but even so I doubt my individual decision to reproduce can be considered as gravely pernicious as you make it out to be. More to the point, my comment was in jest, continuing on the theme of ironic ‘rebellion’ against the academic left’s environmental warnings in this discussion thread.
AJ: It’s not your comments about having 3 children that I found pernicious, but your language in calling them “delightful little carbon based bundles of pollution”. Even if it was ironic, the enivronmental concern with carbon dioxide is not some pie-in-the-sky warning that we should ignore, if we are to consider ourselves scientifically literate over here at GNXP. The need to reduce carbon emissions is not a political issue, it’s a scientific fact, whatever lies the right continues to spin about the issue.
Orion, your attempts to rouse me into a scientific debate about the realities of climate change are beyond ridiculous, not to mention contextually inappropriate. You are an exemplar of the kind of ubiquitous global warming zealotry that i was, in jest, mocking. I do not doubt the science of AGW, but that is irrelevant to this; my labeling children as “delightful little carbon based bundles of pollution” is clearly ironic and not indicative of my GW views. If you were as “literate” in interpreting user comments as you are interpreting AGW research you would not start these pointless gripes.
Well a jumped a little to conclusions, but maybe you’d agree with me that most of the time you see someone from the Right with the set of viewpoints you were putting into hyperbole, they are usually doing so with a misunderstanding of climate science. I didn’t interpret your comments as ironic, so that was my mistake, but it’s not as though sarcasm is the easiest thing to interpret on the internet.
As a side note, I also wasn’t trying to goad you into an argument, I was trying to point you towards the science; if it’s dogmatic to insist on using the best evidence at our disposal, then call me dogmatic. I would rather irritate five people who already know the science then let one person continue to labor under severe illusions about it. I usually don’t get ideological, unless I see someone who is similarly misinformed, contrary to your assumptions about me, which paint the same stereotype I took you for, in reverse.
Also, if you want to see the sort of misinformation I’m talking about look up the book The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney.
I’m the guy with the six kids. I think one reason why westerners in general have small families is that children are seen as an intrusion and distraction from the real purpose of life which seems to be taking care of one’s own interests. I see a lot of that in the posts above.
As a Mormon I grew up in a culture that values family and children as a good in themselves. My wife and I had a large family not because we were expected to, but because we liked having kids and were lucky enough to raise them in a culture that loves children.
I’d be the first to confess that kids can be a royal pain in the butt, especially as teenagers, but, all in all, it was worth the effort. Now that they’re adults they’ve become quite pleasant and interesting friends. And, nothing could ever replace the pleasure of grandchildren.
As to the responsibility of having a large family, I’ll simply note that my IQ is 154, my wife’s 136, and those of our children vary between 120 and 148. Think of us as revolutionaries in the battle against the [coming?] idiocracy, while the rest of you just sit on the sidelines.
Allosaurus, I find it amusing that you would list you family’s precise IQs off in a casual manner here. If you don’t mind me asking, are those scores from official tests administered by a psychologist? I think you should also keep in mind that IQ scores fluctuate over the lifetime, due partly to the fact that the tests have measurement error, norms change, and scores depend on which type of test you’re looking at. You might reliably say that your IQ is in the 150′s range, but not precisely 154, because of the results of one test. The same goes for your children, I hope you don’t base your behavior towards them based on the result of one IQ test. There are good diagnostic reasons for estimating a person’s IQ, but to go around holding a single number in one’s mind for that person is a wrongheaded approach.
You, my friend, need to develop a sense of irony.
Okay, this is starting to tick me off. Who spends their time writing long comments with an elaborate semblance of reality, just to prove what? That’s it’s funny to mock high IQ people who don’t have a lot of kids?
Granted the survey data doesn’t show anyone with “six kids”, but who’s going to pay attention to those details? Next time don’t try to be so damn clever and maybe your post will actually be funny enough that someone could get the irony.
Lighten up. Studies show women appreciate a sense of humor. If you develop one, maybe you’ll be able to reproduce–unlike most of your fellow readers.