The more intelligent a woman is, the less likely she is to have children

[Wuldric]

From the Times, today

"Satoshi Kanazawa, a researcher at the London School of Economics, has begun positing evidence that the more intelligent women are, the less likely they are to seek offspring. Kanazawa analysed Britain?s National Child Development Study and discovered that high intellect correlated with an early resolve toward, and lifelong pursuit of, childlessness.
Among females, an increase of 15 IQ points decreased the odds of their becoming a mother by a quarter. When he added controls for economics and education, the results were identical: youthful intelligence was a predictor of childlessness."

The article is a bit rubbish, in many ways, not least of which is referring to women who choose to have children as 'breeders'. But it is interesting to read that the latest estimates suggest that a quarter of British women of childbearing age will never have a baby, and by and large, it is the intelligent women who forego children.

Thoughts?

Plus men don't want intelligent women, they want people who will make their dinner and agree with them.

Not all men obviously, but far more want that sort of wife than want a really clever one with opinions.

I would hope that lots of the women in the study were childfree because of:
Lottapianos reasons - feminism and awareness that it is a choice
and
LRD's reasons - they were older when they made the decision (due to spending longer in education) so were more aware of what they were giving up and what the decision really meant.

I fear that many will be childfree because they have fulfilling and stimulating careers that they love (not a bad thing in itself) but this kind of job tends to be very full-on and very all-or-nothing and they believe that they had to choose between children and their job.

Do they, relaxed? That's rather depressing. I thought that people wanted partners who they could have a nice time with.

You would think so wouldn't you, Trills.

Maybe that's what they count as a nice time.

I'd wonder how IQ was assessed as it's not routinely measured. Perhaps it's something done as a part of the National Child Development Study? Also is this is a study of the 158 cohort, who have almost certainly finished having children, or the 1971 cohort who might potentially still have one or two. I can't find the article that the OP is referring to.

Interesting that controlling for education made little difference, suggesting it's not a simple delaying affect (although I would have thought that really only relevant for PhDs as having a degree/masters should make little difference).

It pisses me off that people are so quick to question research without even being arsed to read the paper. Not liking it, doesn't make it wrong.

Even worse is the what's-the-point lobby. Probably the single biggest problem the world has is over-population, and you can't see the value of research aimed at a mechanistic understanding of demographic patterns. There's also the relationship between future birth rates and pretty much all areas of future government spending. And many people think understanding human behaviour is intrinsically interesting.

That said, this guy has a reputation for publishing sensationalist tosh, and generally bringing the field into disrepute link.

That's a very interesting link and I am disappointed (but not surprised) that the Times journo did not pick up on the fact that the researcher was way out in left field and had been criticised by a number of highly respected academics for his work being weak.

'The evidence of the women in my group studying a particular subject at Oxbridge seems to bear this out. The very brightest have few children. Personal choice, of course, but it is sad for the country's gene pool.'

Not necessarily - I believe that, as the species tends towards the norm, very intelligent (or very tall, or whatever) people tend to have children marginally closer to the norm than themselves.

Jo, I'm always happy to read the paper but it wasn't linked so have been going on the OP. will read your link.

Btw, I feel as if I say this too much on MN, but, well, I never know exactly how 'choosing' not to have children shades into 'not being able to'.

There must surely be many women who knew for certain they wanted children, and many who knew for certain they didn't, but far more (I think) will be in the middle. How those women interpret their own lives has a heck of a lot to do with conditioning and perspective, and I think it's too simplistic to separate them into those who 'sought' children and those who didn't.

Is it a 'choice' to ignore feeling broody for a couple of years on the basis that you can't possibly have a baby now you're training to be a surgeon? I think probably ten different women could answer that question ten different ways.

Cross post.

It is absurd to knock people for not reading the paper when it hasn't been linked to. The OP is a ref to the Times, which is behind a pay wall.

What's the reference for the link you've given, btw?

I know that this particular study controlled for education, but I think that spending longer in education will make people less likely to have babies by pure statistics.

I think that quite often the choices that you make at 22 are not the same choices that you would make at 30.

Even if the way in which your opinion changed was equally balanced (no allowances for "becoming more stuck in your ways" or "educating yourself about feminism and being aware that it's a choice")

If you would say yes to children at 22 but say no at 30, then spending longer in education will reduce the chance that you try for a baby, because you either:
(in education and busy when younger) get to the decision point at 30, say no
(otherwise) get to the decision point at 22, say yes, then you can't change your mind because you have a child already

If you would say no at 22 but say yes at 30, then being in education will make no difference, because you either:
(in education and busy when younger) get to the decision point at 30, say yes
(otherwise) get to the decision point at 22, say no, but then say yes later.

If you would say yes at both ages then you try for a child.
If you would say no at both ages then you do not try for a child.
Obviously.

DH and I are both educated and in our 20's. DH verges on the edge of the genius category and I come up just above average.

Our social circle consists of a varied bunch but majority close friends are also mid twenties/ thirties and very educated with minimum degree level and aspiring to more or currently achieving more through further education/ career progression...

We find this to be very true: " a more intelligent women is more likely to think and work out details of how having children would impact . So they would want to know they have savings/ good maternity leave/ potentially start up a self employed part of work / decent home etc.. All can take various number of years to achieve, and therefore mean they are likely to start having babies later, leaving them less time to have lots of children"

We decided however to have a baby first and have me be the SAHM while hDH works on his career (could have worked other way around too). Now baby is a toddler I can also return to furthering my education/ career. As time goes along we will then decide if we want any more children (currently thinking one more in 5 years or so). We found this the best way to balance both parenthood and our aspirations. We didn't want to be older parents (not that there is anything wrong with that, personal choice) or struggle to conceive. Many would say this is a risky approach if working partner chose to leave relationship, but we felt secure enough to do this.

I think this may be becoming a new trend as we know many educated young women who are settling down in early to mid twenties in stable relationships and doing the same thing. I have one friend already contemplating number two. She finished her degree while pregnant and finished masters after a year off. Is now cultivating a career but deciding whether to have number 2 before or after beginning career.

I think this study is a load of phooey. Women simply have not been given the choice of being able to have both without sacrifice. A woman with no children will of course have more time to pursue educational attainment.

I would really like to know how this study compares with studies of the same thing in other countries.

In Russia at the moment, there are financial incentives for having babies as there is a dwindling population, and in the previous generation it was much more normal to have children and work, for women, than over here. I wonder if studies into that would put this one in perspective and show it's not a straight intelligence-wanting children correlation.

I honestly find it impossible to believe it is, anyway.

Should also have stated that all my friends going down similar path to myself, come from middle to upper class families and have very secure support systems including at times monetary assistance. Or have a partner in reasonably well paid and secure employment.

Would not be easy to do this if coming from a working class background IMO.

argh me have graah 6 kids garhagad make fire kill bear thump

But I have children and I'm really rather intelligent. Though have never done an IQ test. Used that precious time to have children. See how clever I am?

ZingWidge LOL

Thanks for the link Jo.

I couldn't find a source article for this (and OP didn't link to the media ref).

Without reading his actual articles; it's not possible to say if he's trying to imply anything more than a correlation, and there are correlations for all sorts of things.

I'd be intererested in exactly which cohort sample he analysed, and what sort of numbers of female participants actually stated as children that they never wanted children, and then went on to not have children. I suspect a relatively small number; and I don't find it surprising that this (possibly) small number had higher than average IQ, simply because it's an atypical sentiment and it seems feasible that children of higher than average IQ may have considered this in more depth than their peers, and then later been part of a peer group where being childless is relatively more socially acceptable.

Without having read the source research, or the times article, from the quote about "breeders" it seems the tone is sensationalist and designed to be provocative. I doubt the research supports the media sensationalist position, as is often the case with over-reporting.

ZingWidge

how are other posters finding the details of how they controlled for education?
is there a link i've missed somewhere?

I would think that IQ and education are very tangled up together (certain IQ levels lead to certain education experiences and also certain education experiences can increase performance in IQ tests) and I can't see how they controlled for one without the other.

The researcher's name rang a bell with me.

A quick google revealed why: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Kanazawa (yes, it's wiki, but it's reasonably well cited)

I would take his findings with a sizeable pinch of salt.

Gosh.

That's disturbing.

Black women are objectively less attractive?! How is he able to say that and keep a job?