
Associations between intelligence and childlessness in men (2019) [pdf] - drocer88
https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/72403/1/Does-Intelligence-Predict-Childlessness-In-Men.pdf
======
nathanaldensr
The actual title should include "in men" as it does in the study.

> Results: No linear association between intelligence and childlessness was
> found. However, follow-up analyses showed that higher risk of childlessness
> was associated with the highest stanine intelligence score (two standard
> deviations above the normed average), and that this effect was mediated by
> whether participants had ever been in a relationship by their late twenties.
> No significant direct effect of the highest stanine intelligence score was
> found when the question of whether participants had ever been in a
> relationship by their late twenties was included.

~~~
filoleg
>...and that this effect was mediated by whether participants had ever been in
a relationship by their late twenties. No significant direct effect of the
highest stanine intelligence score was found when the question of whether
participants had ever been in a relationship by their late twenties was
included.

I don't know if it is just me, but I am struggling to parse the meaning of the
part regarding the effect of "ever being in a relationship by their late
twenties" on the premise of this study. The only way I see it now is it means
"being in a relationship by their late twenties negates the whole phenomena of
childlessness and intelligence score relationship that was observed in the
study", but that doesn't feel right.

If someone in the thread can offer a more readable/simplified version of that
statement, it would be very appreciated.

~~~
agravier
I think that more readable one may be "not having been in a relationship in
late 20s is a stronger predictor of subsequent childlessness than scoring high
in intelligence."

~~~
yborg
This seems correct to me, i.e. the current title here is clickbait.

From the paper:

"The results of the present study did not support my hypothesis that
intelligence should be negatively associated with childlessness."

In fairness, the somewhat confusing verbiage here is from I assume a Norwegian
non-native English speaker.

~~~
filoleg
To their defense, a lot of academic papers even from native English speakers
tend to have barely readable convoluted wording here and there. Either for the
purpose of making it sound more complicated or to pad the length of the paper,
I have no idea. But it is something I have been consciously noticing since a
while ago.

------
stared
In this study men with the highest AND lowest intelligence were the least
likely to have kids.

It reminds me of "Smart Teens Don't Have Sex (or Kiss Much Either)" discussed
in [http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-
intelligenc...](http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-
intelligence.php). There was an analogous relationship with having sex. My
interpretation: assortative mating.

------
qwerty456127
Obviously enough intelligent people are more prone to question the popular
idea everybody is to have children (let alone early) in the first place. And
then only reproduce once they feel like they have enough time and money to
raise children in accordance with their reasonably high standards (which may
turn out negative until its too late). While stupid people don't care and just
fuck.

------
jdmcnugent
I read the title as “association between intelligence and childishness”. Made
it halfway though the abstract trying to see if my immaturity meant I was
actually intelligent. Disappointed.

------
cpr
Title is misleading (see conclusion below).

It could also be interpreted that higher intelligence leads to delayed family
formation (for a myriad of reasons), which necessarily involves less
offspring.

 _Conclusion: The present study revealed a complex association between
intelligence and childlessness. The mediated association between the highest
stanine intelligence score and childlessness was interpreted as an expression
of delayed family formation. It is still unclear whether this delay in family
formation will “catch up” if childlessness is measured at an older age, which
raises the need for additional studies on the subject._

------
amelius
Did they investigate if this was by choice?

------
amriksohata
Is that because wealthy people are less likely to want children? Doesn't mean
you are intelligent if you don't have children

------
m0zg
I thought this study was done years ago:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXSz0bA9CiE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXSz0bA9CiE)

------
generalpass
Regression to the mean?

------
droithomme
It's because we are so annoying to normal people.

~~~
filoleg
I bet it has more to do with refusing to develop even a minimum baseline of
social skills, thinking that being very smart can compensate for being
intolerable around other people. The reality is, you gotta have both on at
least a baseline minimum level.

And no excuses like "it has to be one or the other" are really valid, because
I've definitely met people who were both extremely smart by any possible
metric (even if the baseline of intelligence used for comparison is an average
of other engineers), as well as extremely socially intelligent.

~~~
droithomme
People prefer to marry those who have similar intelligence to themselves.

When one gets out 2, 3, 4, 5 standard deviations from the mean, there's only a
very small number of others of similar intellect. Very very very small at the
high end.

The chance of finding someone who is of compatible intellect and who is also
compatible in even basic other ways is extremely small.

This accounts for the results of the study. There's no need to propose
mechanisms whereby the exceptionally intelligent somehow foolishly believe
that their intelligence gives them a pass, which it obviously doesn't. Mere
observation and life experience shows that to be the opposite of reality.

~~~
filoleg
I think you misunderstood my comment. Emotional/social intelligence and
"technical" intelligence are completely separate things. I agree with your
point, but I don't think that it works against my original hypothesis, it
works alongside it.

I wasn't trying to say that all exceptionally intelligent people believe that
they have no need for social skills because they are so smart. In fact, I
brought up an example of the opposite.

And I agree with you that it makes sense that people would prefer to pair up
with people of similar "technical" intelligence as them. However, I doubt that
if you take a potential couple, where both people possess "technical"
intelligence but only one possesses emotional intelligence, that person is
going to be very willing to be with someone who lacks it to such a severe
degree.

Leading me to a conclusion that a lot of very "technically" smart people are
limiting their already narrow pool of people of similar "technical"
intelligence level by not working on their emotional intelligence/social
skills.

------
rjkennedy98
I'm curious if this is just a Western thing. I feel like in Asia the
government takes steps to prevent this from happening (one/two child policy
and the ability to "buy" more children).

~~~
kick
Asia isn't just Mainland China.

~~~
ip26
According to whom? The PRC might disagree with you.

~~~
oarabbus_
You have to be colossally ignorant to not know India is in Asia.

~~~
ip26
And I'd be colossally surprised if the PRC had never fantasized about ruling
India (not that they could). They seem to feel just about everything ought to
belong to them.

------
oarabbus_
Well intelligence is partially hereditary, and childless men won't be passing
on their genes, so I counter that these men really aren't as intelligent as
claimed.

~~~
Zenbit_UX
> and childless men won't be passing on their genes, so I counter that these
> men really aren't as intelligent as claimed.

Hmm, I guess we found the breeder?

Not even sure where to begin with this, circular reasoning?

Have you perhaps considered that these intelligent people have considered tgat
passing on their genes is not as valuable to them as other things they might
value? I'd posit you haven't, and further, you shouldn't consider yourself
among them.

~~~
oarabbus_
I don't have any kids, so you failed to find "the breeder".

Nor do I consider myself particularly intelligent, making you 0 for 2, and it
all the more wonderfully ironic if you considered yourself amongst that group.

~~~
Zenbit_UX
I said you shouldn't consider yourself among them, not that you do.

Also your circular arguments towards childless men being stupid while also
being a self-proclaimed "stupid & childless man" is poetic and somehow makes
sense to me.

