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?

IQ is fascinating (whatever the relationship with other types or definitions of 'intelligence).
In Scotland the entire population was IQ tested in 1932 when they were at school - the cohort born in 1921. From that information they've been able to look at all kinds of things such as the relationship between IQ and health, IQ and dementia, IQ and income... it's really really interesting stuff on a population level.
I would imagine that this same data would easily reveal whether there was an IQ and childlessness correlation for Scotland over that period.

LRD - I was hoping you could give my some insight into the world of academia and explain that, as I'm completely baffled

www.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/Experts/[email protected]

Intelligence (presumeably IQ) is also correlated (positively or negatively) with height, attractiveness, obesity, homosexuality, being a night owl, being liberal.....

So if you're a night owl-liberal-atheist who never wanted children; you are presumeably an absolute genius....

I've no clue - it makes me angry. But then LSE isn't known for its ethical rectitude.

Good grief, its that guy!?

Pfft, I knew this was all bull.

Bad, it is quoted in the OP that he did control for it, but not how.

I can't see any mention of what the paper is or where it's published, but I will say Satoshi Kanazawa is not a researcher to set much store by. He seems to aim for controversy over illumination and his use of statistics is often questionable.

I can see why, in a society that is so unfriendly towards women with children, any quality that might make a woman a better decision maker might be likely to decrease the chances a woman would have children. But I haven't seen the paper so have no idea if he presents evidence that actually backs that up.

I'd like to link to the whole article but it is subscription only. Nothing more is said on the sampling methodology or anything.

Have I missed it, or could you give me the reference? I might have subscription and I'd like to have a quick look, though TBH I think he's not worth reading.

I would have thought it would be more that less intelligent people don't think about decisions in as much detail and as the socially expected thing for women is to get married (or find a long term partner) and have children, then that is what they would do if they weren't thinking much about it. Whereas if you are an intelligent person who thinks things through more then you might decide yes, I would like children, or no, I don't want to have children. Hence, more likely to decide that they don't want children, but equally, likely to decide they do.

But then I also think it's a load of crap anyway - surely intelligent people can also decide they want children and not university, a career etc. How do you measure intelligence?

Looking at that wiki article it would appear that Kanazawa has very very odd and really rather unpleasant views that in general are poorly backed up by any evidence. I don't think that this is an article that anyone should take that much notice of, it just suggests that as well as having exressed views that are racist (Africans are poor because they have low IQs, black women are unattractive) and xenophobic (wouldn't it be great to have nuked everyone in the Middle East) Kanazawa is probably also sexist.

in a society that is so unfriendly towards women with children

Do you think we live in a society that is friendly to women without children?

It's about education, not intelligence. Throughout history, the more education a woman has, the fewer kids she has. It said on the radio the other day that the average age of a UK first time mother was now 31, and for those with university degrees it's 35.

Many women educated to degree level and beyond are also remaining childless.

I'd have thought the reasons were self evident.

For different reasons, Trills. It wants those without to become those with, so it knows what to do with them.

Society is unfriendly to women with children is not going to be a reason for someone to stay childless, because they'll just have a different type of unkindness to deal with.

Trills - there is virtually no reproductive choice a woman can make that doesn't get negative judgement from somewhere.

However, while being childfree can mean receiving a wealth of ignorant comments and attitudes, I don't think it compares to the negative consequences having children can bring.

Everything from: experiencing atrocious maternity services - because having children is "women's stuff" therefore not truly important and is funded accordingly

You career being put on the "Mummy track", whether you want it to or not, not withstanding the many women who regardless of legalities, are forced out of their jobs.

Then there's the impact of a child-unfriendly society and that raising children still isn't valued or seen as important...

I could go on.

Society screws over mothers in so many ways.

Trills I think women who have children get a double dose - they deal with all the stuff women without children have and then the issues of being a mother on top.

Another load of bollicksey research, I mean who buys into this crap?

Where is the evidence? Who wrote it? What population? What sample size? What demographic? And so the list goes on.

I wasn't in the sample size, 3 kids, masters educated and career.

Just another study to 'categorise' women, put us into our little boxes and make mass generalisations.

Oh and who the hell is paying for this load of crap, yes, the taxpayer!

I do heartily agree that women with children get a double dose of misogyny

It has concerned me that evo psych research tends to demonstrate differences between the genders must be genetic by also collecting evidence of differences between ethnicities and using that as the comparison point for what is cultural.

It seemed only a matter of time, having all this information to hand, that one of them would decide the ethnic differences were also genetic and publish it as such, because nothing about the sloppy methodology or underlying reasoning of the discipline prevents them from doing so. It is only pressure and influence of others that stops any racist researcher publishing this stuff in that academic field, and only the lack of pressure and influence of others that allows them to keep churning out the sexist stuff.

Freya, I don't suppose you have or know where I can find a quick and handy list of reasons why evolutionary psychology is junk? I know (vaguely) that it's full of sloppy methodology and lazy assumptions but have forgotten the detail... would be jolly handy to have a quick refresh!

Not exactly a quick list, but the issues scientists have with it are here:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolutionary-psychology/

Thank you!

Freya Satoshi Kanazawa is there already. He was recently disciplined by the LSE for a blog post in which he posited that black women were less attractive than other women.