Saturday, October 21, 2017

Relationship between intelligence and age when children born

Responding to the apparently quite mild contemporary dysgenic trend among whites, Sid writes:
My guess, however, is that dumbies are more inclined to have children earlier than the smarties are. Occuring generation after generation, this would have an unmistakably dysgenic impact
The GSS inquires about the age of parents at the time of the birth of their first child. It will likely come as a surprise to no one reading this that Sid is correct.

The following table shows, by intelligence*, the mean age of non-Hispanic whites when their first children are born. To avoid issues with language fluency, responses are restricted to those born in the US. For contemporary relevance, responses are from 2000 onward:

IntelligenceAvgAge
Real dumbs22.3
Pretty dumbs23.4
Normals24.2
Pretty smarts25.3
Really smarts27.0

GSS variables used: RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), AGEKDBRN, BORN(1), WORDSUM(0-3)(4-5)(6)(7-8)(9-10), YEAR(2000-2016)

* For intelligence, respondents are broken up into five categories that come to very roughly resemble a normal distribution; Really Smarts (Wordsum score of 9-10, comprising 11% of the population), Pretty Smarts (7-8, 30%), Normals (6, 24%), Pretty Dumbs (4-5, 27%), and Real Dumbs (0-3, 8%).

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Is there an inverse relationship between intelligence and the age of first (and hopefully only) marriage, too?

Anonymous said...

Quibble: It's a direct relationship, not an inverse relationship (the greater your intelligence, the greater your age when your children are born).

Thanks for all your investigations!

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

The GSS asks about age when a respondent's current marriage began, but it's not necessarily the first marriage.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Oops! Don't know how I mucked that one up. Fixed, thanks.

Sid said...

I appreciate your kind words and your research into this! I've been trying to think up of new insights and new potential lines of inquiry, but haven't been able to. All in all, I think you have a very solid case, based on the GSS, that dysgenics is taking place today. The effect is mild with whites but stark with NAMs.

dc.sunsets said...

I love being the exception to a rule.

Every time I see social statistics like this my first question is, "are there multiple discrete subpopulations being lumped together such that the results are confounded?"

In my opinion, every human attribute is exhibited on a spectrum, and each person appears to be born to a segment on each of those spectra. "Free will" is the decision (if consciously made) where on ones segment one chooses to exist.

Paradoxically, even being aware of such things exists, itself, on a spectrum. This is what I believe so confounds discussions of intelligence. A high IQ person who is otherwise low-spectrum for thinking for himself (or more commonly, herself, given that women appear to have a higher mean propensity to herd) is a serious confounding subpopulation when inquiring of "what do smart people do?"

To me, it is self-evident that early marriage reduces the emotional baggage men and women bring to the rest of their lives, and begins the process of blending lives together while the man and woman are not overly habituated to conflicting behaviors. To me, it's self-evident that having kids early means you have far more energy to handle the job, and you'll get to the empty-nest stage with plenty of vitality yet to enjoy it. [I shudder to imagine the lives of people I know who must manage the parent-child contests of kids' teen years with the energy I now have in middle age.]

Just because the stupid-as-fuck herd surrounds me doesn't stop me from figuring these things out and acting accordingly, even if large numbers of people with IQ's 2-plus SD's above the mean are still too high on the spectrum of herd behavior for their reason to dominate their subconscious herding mind.

It would be interesting to study those high(er) IQ people who are INTJ on the Briggs Meyers personality spectrum. I suggest that such people are somewhat more likely to deduce their actions as opposed to absorbing and copying the actions of the herd that surrounds them. Unfortunately, while INTJ's are over-represented among high-IQ people, they're still rare, making any study of that population difficult.

PS: Is it not simply astonishing to peruse the list of dominant actions celebrated and promoted endlessly by the Pop Culture herd these last 50 years that even rudimentary deductive reasoning predicts will yield widespread misery?
--Casual "NSA" sex.
--War-on-men feminism.
--Every girl goes to college.
--Late marriage after everyone whores himself/herself out like a cheap camp follower.

And then people are shocked, shocked when happiness permanently eludes them...



dc.sunsets said...

PPS: I had kids "early" by today's pop culture road map. They are having kids relatively early, too (although not as early as did I, a fact I blame in part on the dearth of marriageable young women given that most girls today are ruined by pop culture herding and egregious and unpardonable parental malpractice.)

And my kids all (all) appear to be 140+ IQ in the IQ test of life (i.e., they function in their lives at a 1-in-200 or less common level of superiority) while having married girls who appear significantly above average in intelligence as well.

Dysgenic behavior is for lower animals.

Audacious Epigone said...

dc.sunsets,

"Smart" in this context probably would be better described as "intelligent". Smart has positive vernacular connotations; intelligence does too to some extent but it is also, more clinically, understood as a personality trait. As such, it can still be maladaptive at both the individual level and the civilizational level. That's certainly the way I see it.

Your path is the salubrious one. It's laudable and more people should follow. I'm 34 now with #3 on the way. If I could do it over again I would've started earlier (my wife just turned 27 though, so she did start pretty early).

dc.sunsets said...

AE, Congratulations! As you know, nowadays having kids before 37 or 40 is unfashionable and deemed (sniff, sniff) something those people do. All I can say is that grandkids are riot of fun when you can get down on the floor with them and play.

Unsolicited advice: No matter how much you're enjoying the ride, redouble your conscious indulgence in the joys now. If I had a way-back machine, that's all I'd do, go back and just revel in my relationship with my wife, the fun with the kids, etc. I'm trying to do that now, realizing that in 20 years I'll wish I had indulged myself twice as much with my young wife now, just as I view photos and memories of my young wife from over three decades ago (yes, of course, it's the same girl.)

It all goes by too fast, and the things about which I worried ended up (so far) not mattering. It was more than enough to simply assemble a coherent family life, everything else somehow worked itself out.

silly girl said...

Okay, this is off topic, AE.

Nursing textbook tells nurses that Jews want a lot of attention to their pain and muslims will thank Allah.

Not kidding.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/10/23/nursing-textbook-pulled-over-stereotypes

Audacious Epigone said...

dc.sunsets,

Beautifully put, thank you. I am inclined in the same direction as your advice. The best moment of the day, by far, is when I come through the front door and both kids yell "hi dada" and come tackle me.

Silly girl,

Ha! I wonder if this guy had a hand in putting that textbook together.