
Older fathers have 'geekier sons' - funkylexoo
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40340540
======
rocktronica
Sure seems like correlation to me.

Older fathers are more likely to have established careers, establishing higher
socioeconomic status, affording a lifestyle that engenders "geekiness".

~~~
samirillian
It would also seem that they're less likely to play sports with their
children. I wonder if there's a way to isolate athleticism from geekiness.

~~~
magic_beans
Plenty of men with single mothers* learn to play sports just fine (see many
NBA and NFL players).

*This is not to say that women don't play sports with their sons, but to say that it's silly to assume that all young fathers play sports with their sons.

~~~
awkwarddaturtle
Having a single mother would means kids are by themselves and playing with
neighborhood kids. Having an older father means being at home more.

------
cbanek
I'm seriously confused on this.

First, the article throws out some very reasonable sounding things, like older
dads are more established and stable parents. This seems totally legit.

Then they start talking of a 'geek gene' that gets passed down by dads as they
get older? That seems ridiculous to me. We don't even know how general
intelligence works on a genetic level.

Overall, I feel like we put way too much stock in genetics over how children
are raised. The world children live in today (screens, different types of
processed food, flashy movies and cartoons) is so different than hundreds or
thousands of years ago. Early childhood years are also hugely important for
brain development and social skills yet we give little kids screens to keep
them quiet, hooking them early.

Just seems like any excuse to not involve parenting is in vogue now.

~~~
manyoso
Almost every study on early childhood development and later outcomes shows
that how a child is raised has very little to do with outcomes compared to
heredity.

[https://www.vox.com/2015/8/11/9127769/parenting-advice-
worth...](https://www.vox.com/2015/8/11/9127769/parenting-advice-worthless)

[https://www.vox.com/2015/3/31/8320233/time-spent-with-
kids](https://www.vox.com/2015/3/31/8320233/time-spent-with-kids)

[http://quillette.com/2016/01/19/heritability-and-why-
parents...](http://quillette.com/2016/01/19/heritability-and-why-parents-but-
not-parenting-matter/)

~~~
cbanek
I looked at your links, but I'm still not sure I buy it. All of these seem to
quote the same study, and it doesn't involve any child under 3, which is
actually where a lot of early childhood development happens. That's the time
when a child who's left alone in a room will basically turn into a vegetable.

I do agree that there's no magic formula for being a great parent. The baby
Beethoven phenom, best color to paint your baby's room, etc are indeed
useless. But that's good parents who actually care trying to read studies and
be better. These parents are involved, and care. Not all parents are like
that.

From your second article:

"In fact, the study found one key instance when parent time can be
particularly harmful to children. That’s when parents, mothers in particular,
are stressed, sleep-deprived, guilty and anxious."

This sounds like exactly the kind of thing that would happen less with older,
more established parents.

On the other hand, if the parents can't hold a job, or are addicted to drugs,
I think you'd be hard pressed to say that doesn't have an effect on childhood
outcomes. If anything, parents who are criminals are more likely to have
children that are criminals.

If you want to say criminality is genetic, that's a fair argument. But I
believe it's more likely to be about class/race/means, and is a set of learned
behaviors.

I think there's a limit to how good parenting can affect outcomes to the
positive (genetics). But I also think bad parenting can't be ruled out. And
none of these studies talk about sub-par parenting.

~~~
imron
> This sounds like exactly the kind of thing that would happen less with
> older, more established parents

Conversely, younger people are better at handling things like sleep
deprivation and so on.

------
0x4d464d48
I read an article a couple of months ago about autism being linked to delayed
fatherhood: [http://www.nature.com/news/fathers-bequeath-more-
mutations-a...](http://www.nature.com/news/fathers-bequeath-more-mutations-as-
they-age-1.11247). Being different was something that touched near and dear to
my heart like many self-conscious geeks and my old man didn't have me until he
was 41.

I know N=1... but when you're debating with your friends whether or not this
([http://imgur.com/m52Wo4a](http://imgur.com/m52Wo4a)) can be classified as a
sandwich or if it warrants a new nomenclature entirely and realizing that
these are the people you are associating with it's difficult to not look for
answers.

~~~
jessaustin
How would that _not_ be a sandwich?

~~~
0x4d464d48
There are several points of contention but here are some of the most common
points I've encountered:

\- When the term 'sandwich' is used in reference to a bagel being used for the
'bread' there is a presumption that the bagel is sliced along a transverse
equatorial plane with the hole of the bagel being orthogonal to the ground.
This photo clearly defies that convention.

\- A sandwich by most conventions is kept between two or more slices of bread
in layers. If there are more than two layers between bread in a sandwich they
are stacked vertically and separated by individual slices of bread. The
subject under discussion has two layers, which is conventionally acceptable
for a sandwich to have, but they are not stacked vertically. Some scholars
have argued that this means that it is incorrect to call this a 'sandwich' in
the singular sense but it is acceptable to call the entity a composition of
'sandwiches'.

This is just a taste of the great bagel debate currently raging across very
small niches of geeks but hopefully it gives you a flavour of why no
definitive answer has been accepted by the community. And this has not even
touched on the bagel-complete problems such as the topological properties of
the mobius bagel
[http://images.tastespotting.com/uploads/thumbnail/125155.jpg](http://images.tastespotting.com/uploads/thumbnail/125155.jpg).

------
mikek
Older fathers correlate with an increased risk of autism.

[https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/study-
ties...](https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/study-ties-
dad’s-age-risk-autism-other-mental-disorders-kids)

~~~
drzaiusapelord
And mothers too.

[http://www.npr.org/sections/health-
shots/2015/06/10/41320592...](http://www.npr.org/sections/health-
shots/2015/06/10/413205921/more-evidence-that-parents-ages-could-influence-
autism-risk)

Worse, double the risk of schizophrenia for children who have dads at 40.
Triple at 50.

[http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/older.htm](http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/older.htm)

Other mood and psychological disorders are linked to father's age as well.
Turns out sperm and eggs are delicate and after 40 years of aging, simply
can't do their jobs well. Evolution's mechanisms aren't kind to older parents.

~~~
FeteCommuniste
Just to clarify, the sperm cells of a forty year old man (unlike the egg cells
of a forty year old woman) are not themselves forty years old.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
Right but the body that creates them has damaged 40-year old DNA and the DNA
that ends up in the sperm comes from that damaged source.

------
TallGuyShort
I don't see a link to this actual study, only the TEDS study (was it actually
parts of the TEDS study, or just using the same data?) But my first question
is if they've considered if really the correlation is coming from closely
related variables other than just age:

\- Father's who start a family later vs father's who start a family early but
have additional children later.

\- Children who are more likely to have multiple older siblings.

~~~
manyoso
The first one is directly addressed in this article. Others that hint at
correlation are also discussed.

------
asveikau
I've also read that older fathers see increased odds of a child with mental
illness.

Example: [https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/health/mental-illness-
ris...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/health/mental-illness-risk-higher-
for-children-of-older-parents-study-finds.html)

I guess the article here also says it:

> Repeated studies have shown that older sperm is more prone to genetic errors
> and children are more likely to develop autism and schizophrenia.

------
lazyjones
Seems obvious that geekier men start families and have children later.

Example: Bill Gates.

~~~
bdamm
Why is it obvious? Doesn't seem obvious to me. Is it because of the stereotype
that geekier men don't hook up as young as non-geek men? What is the
difference between a geekier man and a less-geeky man? Can it be objectively
defined?

~~~
exclusiv
I'd suggest that geeky dads are going to attempt to be very logical with their
all their decisions. So they might take their time with their spouse, want to
get a house, get finances in a great place, etc, before making the jump to
have kids.

At some point the geekier types either alleviate all their concerns and/or
realize that a lot of great things can't be framed into a logical decision,
and they make the jump. :)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>Repeated studies have shown that older sperm is more prone to genetic errors
and children are more likely to develop autism and schizophrenia //

How is it logical then to wait until you're older (define older!)?

Part of my decision - first child c. 30 - was not to wait any longer lest I be
unable to keep up with them physically.

~~~
exclusiv
It's logical from a financial perspective for many people. When I think of
older first time parents I think 30+. In the past upper 20s might be
considered older because people would get married in young 20s and have
children shortly after.

You want to be able to afford the increasingly higher costs of having
children. You want your marriage to not be stressed from added financial
responsibility. People tend to make more as they get older so many wait. That
played a role in my decision to wait for sure.

The physical component you suggested is certainly a logical argument for
having them younger. That pressure is higher for women too because they
consider the risks of pregnancy (as you noted) and the possibility they may
not be able to conceive if they wait too long.

I understand your decision but to me - having a kid at 30 over the physical
concern is not logical. Sure I'd be 48 when they're 18 but even at that point,
I don't have physical concerns. In fact, that would provide additional
motivation to remain healthy. If I was considering physical capability for
grandkids then that might enter my decision. My wife just talks about how we'd
be the older parents in our kid's class which doesn't concern me.

Everyone's situation is different though. I just think finances is a big
driver for those that wait and honestly I think it's a good one. If you're
married and don't have your finances in order, there's a good chance your
marriage won't last and you'll rack up more stress which isn't good for you or
your kids.

------
soared
This is kind of alluded to in the article, but isn't their definition of
'geekiness' just a definition of the difference between older fathers and
younger fathers? As you age your ability to focus on a single task increase,
your become more aloof, etc.

------
sebringj
What about epigenetic factors in low stress environments? We already know this
is proven to be a huge factor in gene expression. That is probably the
"stable" part they mentioned.

------
JoeAltmaier
Maybe its not so much the Dad; its having older siblings by the time you're
Dad is old? My youngest grew up very mature, trying to keep up with his older
brothers.

My first son is a soldier. The 2nd and 3rd are software developers and
musicians. Works for me.

------
glippiglop
The findings seem a little off to me. My father was 26 when I was born and he
was a leather cutter, so our family wasn't advantaged in any way. He was also
a hopeless parent and played very little part in my personal development,
despite being physically present throughout my childhood.

The really key environmental factors that led me to being a geek can firmly be
put down to: My Mother taking me to the library every week; having plenty of
books at home and school; and good quality teaching at school. I can't imagine
that having an older/wealthier father would have that much additional impact
on top of these factors.

~~~
dragonwriter
“I don't fit the pattern” is not a strong reason for rejecting research
findings that claim an increased probability of an outcome based on an input,
not an _sine qua non_ relationship.

anecdote < data.

~~~
j9461701
Precisely. I even _fit_ the pattern, being an aspergers STEM major whose
father was in his 50s when I was born. But that's no more evidence than the
other person's refutation, because personal experience is worthless here.
Statistics matter, and our own biases serve only to cloud our analysis.

------
ravenstine
Or is it that geekier fathers have children later in life?

------
seoseokho
I think it would've been more convincing, if the study was able to show the
splits down non-/geekie parents (or by parent's occupation). My dad's an
engineer and he's very geekie for his generation, growing up I always wanted
to be like my dad. When I was 12, I'm sure I would've scored high on the
geekiness index.

------
ThomPete
My sons are both geeky (love science, minecraft and math) and like to
skateboard, BMX, BayBlade, shoot each other with nerf guns, fight all the time
and just play whenever they can get to it.

I was 36 when I got my oldest and 39 when i got my second son.

Just anecdotal but so does this seems to be.

------
azakai
Without mentioning the size of the effect, this is meaningless. Are they 1%
geekier? 10% geekier? 0.1% geekier?

They provide a link to the data the study was based on, but not the actual
study, so it's not obvious how to check this.

------
alexchantavy
Interesting, but this article doesn't say actual numbers for how old an "older
father" is defined in the study, and I'm too lazy to dive deeper. Anyone else
find out?

------
Overtonwindow
Perhaps. My dad was 36 when he had me and was deep into ham radio, and
computers. I was influenced by all of that.

------
EGreg
Perhaps older fathers are themselves geekier!

On the other hand, is there correlation between myopia and intelligence?

~~~
j9461701
Yes, because myopia is something of a self-inflicted condition for geeky
indoors types. See:

[http://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia-
boom-1.17120](http://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia-boom-1.17120)

Basically if you spend all day with your nose in a book, your eyes start going
to pot. And the people most likely to read all the time tend to also be quite
smart.

------
irrational
How old do I need to become before my children become geekier?

------
geekierkid
Makes sense, older fathers would be more aware of how technology changes the
word and how necessary having at least an understanding of tech is to their
offspring's future success.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Assuming we're all talking solely tech-geek then I'd posit that older fathers
are going to be more out of touch with modern tech; which doesn't show
anything in itself.

The might however have more disposable cash, did they control for wealth?

------
forgottenacc57
"Geeky fathers have children older".

------
goldensnit
I am geeky, my dad was pretty young (23) when he had me.

------
carsongross
In other news, if you want to be tall, play basketball.

~~~
rytill
Yes of course, if you want to have an older dad just be geeky.

------
partycoder
Reminds me of the movie "Idiocracy"

------
goldensnit
My dad had me at 23. I am relatively geeky. I don't think it makes much of a
difference.

