Are Babies for Idiots? Maternal Urge Decreases in Women with Higher IQ

[Freeper]

AngryAmish (19,758 posts)

Are Babies for Idiots? Maternal Urge Decreases in Women with Higher IQ


 
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/497192/20130806/maternal-urge-decreases-more-intelligence-childless-study.htm

"A new study suggests that women who are highly intelligent may be more likely to choose not to have children.

According to the survey conducted by Satoshi Kanazawa, a researcher at the London School of Economics (LSE), women lose a quarter of their urge to have children with every 15 extra IQ points.

The study, which cites data from the UK's National Child Development Study, remained the same even when Kanazawa added economics and education as controls.

His findings are backed up by statistics which show that, whereas just 20% of British women over the age of 45 are childless, the figure rises to 43% for women with degrees."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023413300

The claim is 43% of women withe degrees don't have children so that somehow means they are more intelligent. We have seen at DU many people with degrees who barely have the brain power to breathe on their own, jugs being a prime example.

What I think this shows is, women who are more focused on getting degrees and more career oriented will more than likely not have children more than women who are more focused on family life instead of careers. This has nothing to do with intelligence, but with what one's priorities are. This is all part of the left's constant assault on family and traditional values. I'm not saying that all women should have kids, I'm complaining how the left attempts to shame women who do want kids, now they are trying to claim that mothers are stupid.

AngryAmish (19,758 posts)
3. My fear is Idiocracy was a documentary

Mine too, that surely explains the elections of 2008 and 2012.

DonCoquixote (6,133 posts)
114. I'll see that and raise you

religion.

The ugly truth is, the reason why every agressive religion wants large families, they not only want to control the gene pool, they want to drown everyone else in it. That is why ., despite the fact all religions have progressive factions, the clergy in all religions, be they the Mormons, the Muslims, the Catholics, the Baptists, etc, all want large poor families; they make for cheap labor and bad educations.

 

[txradioguy]

The ugly truth is, the reason why every agressive religion wants large families, they not only want to control the gene pool, they want to drown everyone else in it. That is why ., despite the fact all religions have progressive factions, the clergy in all religions, be they the Mormons, the Muslims, the Catholics, the Baptists, etc, all want large poor families; they make for cheap labor and bad educations.

Umm yeah ok.     Never mind that large families used to be the norm until the Feminist movement and Roe v. Wade.

A society, a nation cannot survive with a decreasing population of your people to replace those that die or become infirm.

It's not about religious zealotry you F*cking moron...it's about sustainability.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I'll wager there is a corresponding rise I the expectation that someone else will pay for their healthcare and retirement when they get older.


Liberalism: I want a retirement, but I'll be damned if I earn it myself...I want the next generation to pay for me but I'll be damned if I make them myself.

[JohnnyReb]

According to the survey conducted by Satoshi Kanazawa, a researcher at the London School of Economics (LSE), women lose a quarter of their urge to have children with every 15 extra IQ points.

So, DUmmie wymins with an IQ of 60 or above shouldn't be breeding........hell, we've known that for years.....but they breed anyway.

[Chris_]

Are Babies for Idiots? Maternal Urge Decreases in Women with Higher IQ

And the ignorant wretches at DU naturally assume this refers to them.

[BlueStateSaint]

I'll wager there is a corresponding rise I the expectation that someone else will pay for their healthcare and retirement when they get older.

Not to mention an exponential loss of common sense.

[Gina]

Hmmm.  I am 40ish.  Used preventive measures and got knocked up.  I'll take being called having a lower IQ than some lib bitch that would murder her own baby because it didn't suit her needs.   

I deal with my actions and responsibilites, I don't get them scraped out.

[Carl]

How much do inner city,welfare baby factories skew the figures?

[DumbAss Tanker]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023413300

The claim is 43% of women withe degrees don't have children so that somehow means they are more intelligent. We have seen at DU many people with degrees who barely have the brain power to breathe on their own, jugs being a prime example.

I think the poor dumb bastard, obviously the offspring of an idiot by his own measure, has the cause and effect backward...women who have less desire to have children are more likely to continue farther in higher education, and education (As you correctly note) doesn't necessarily relate to native intelligence at all.  Anecdotally, I would note I've known a lot of highly-intellligent women who would gladly give up one or more of their degrees to be able to have a re-do and have children instead, but they ignored the biological clock too long and deeply regret it.

[Wineslob]

My Aunt (the DUmbass, I've written about her) we found out, had her tubes tied when she was in her 20's. She's highly intelligent, and likes "free sex" which includes wrecking marriages.


Nice, really nice.    

[JohnnyReb]

My Aunt (the DUmbass, I've written about her) we found out, had her tubes tied when she was in her 20's. She's highly intelligent, and likes "free sex" which includes wrecking marriages.

Nice, really nice.    

Isn't that the liberal way? If someone else has one and you don't, you take it from them.....in this case, a husband.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

GliderGuider (15,469 posts)

18. Mother's Day is mawkish, sentimental, pro-breeding propaganda.
 
Last edited Tue Aug 6, 2013, 09:50 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

On the other hand, our parents' behavior is understandable - when most of our parents had us, the walls of the future hadn't closed in quite as tightly as they have now.

Today any potential parent with a milligram of empathy and compassion will refrain from procreating. Only someone who is completely bound up in their own psychic wounds and egoic needs would even consider bringing a helpless child into the buzz-saw world that's unfolding around us.

GliderGuider (15,469 posts)

75. Based on the fact that the whole human species is probably 100x into overshoot.

Last edited Tue Aug 6, 2013, 01:08 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

And that the level of our activity is making the planet unfit for habitation, whether by humans or many other species.

The level of human activity that can qualified as sustainable over the long haul (say the next 100,000 years) is probably on the order of 10 to 20 million people, but only if their energy consumption is at pre-Paleolithic levels. (http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Sustainability.html)

Based on that probability, I don't need to be any kind of a a eugenicist for my proposals to appear catastrophic and unreasonable. I certainly don't expect anyone to formulate policy on this basis.

mainer (6,829 posts)

147. The Chinese ferociously marketed "one child max"
 
yet real human beings tried to get around those rules because ... well, they're human beings.

get the red out (7,407 posts)

149. The government, not their culture

Their culture was still set on "have a boy to take care of you in the future", so many girls were dropped of at the orphanage, or simply hidden by their families hoping for the desired boy next time around.

mainer (6,829 posts)

150. So we must wipe out "the culture"?
 
I'm not entirely sure how to do that without exterminating the human race. Which, according to some here, seems to be the preferable route to overpopulation.

You were talking about "marketing". So it's not marketing per se, you're saying, it's the way people live and think and grew up.

get the red out (7,407 posts)

155. That is my take on how a culture markets things

I cannot see where I suggested "wiping out" anyone or anything! I was just questioning the government of China as a representation of their culture. Their current government system is far younger than their culture.

I do not see how pointing out how a culture predisposes people to think is a suggestion that someone try to wipe them out?

I personally believe that OUR cultural marketing is coming from the corporations who need more and more unquestioning consumers and warriors. I am not suggesting our people be wiped out either.

And of course the worker's paradise can thrive...without workers.

GliderGuider (15,469 posts)

166. And where do the corporations come from?

Last edited Tue Aug 6, 2013, 04:41 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Why have they become so powerful? Are they not simply picking up belief/behavior cues that already exist in the population, and re-marketing the ones that are advantageous to them?

A culture markets things by creating narratives about them - largely unconscious stories we tell ourselves and each other about how the world works. They are mostly lies and self-deceptions, but that's the only thing that works to hold a culture together. People are fundamentally emotional and non-rational. Me included.

There is virtually nothing about the structure of human society that is abnormal or artificial (whatever those words might mean in this context). Distasteful yes, but that's not quite the same thing. things got to be this way not because of corporate malfeasance, but because at each step of the way the collective "we" agreed on some level that the next step was a good idea.

Oh, to be one of the enlightened.

WCLinolVir (256 posts)

178. You can not separate our society from the politics of corporatism.

And you can not paint a picture of a society evolving without acknowledging a history of coercion. Theory that is not supported by facts is inapplicable. There is nothing unconscious about how things are marketed. If you really believe that then you really have been drinking the koolaid. People are fundamentally coerced. Just look at the high rates of depression and suicide. A symptom of the reality of what we are subjected to in our society. It is a symptom of the abnormal and artificial.
I really think you have hit the sweet spot in your thinking that gives you a comfort zone. Even though it is false.

GliderGuider (15,469 posts)

179. Yes, people are fundamentally coerced.

In fact, all norming (without which societies could not even form) is coercive - I got schooled in that fact earlier today on this thread. Any group of two or more people will exhibit coercion to some degree. But the coercion we're really talking about seems to be inevitable in a high-energy society. Just like the hierarchies that spring up to give the global system enough structure to let us produce and use 18 TW of power. You don't get that kind of power dissipation without a solid social structure, and you don't get that kind of solidity without coercion.

This perspective stems from my understanding of how the Second law of Thermodynamics operates in open, non-linear, far-from-equilibrium systems like the Earth, ecosystems, or human and non-human societies. In such circumstances self-organizing dissipative structures appear spontaneously. This operation of the Second Law shapes and constrains human behavior in similar (but more complex) ways to how it shapes hurricanes, Benard cells and life itself.

Hurricanes and tornadoes emerge to dissipate atmospheric and oceanic energy gradients. Life arises because the conditions are supportive and there are local energy gradients and other resources to be used. Life apparently emerges because it is a more effective as a dissipative structure than inanimate systems like whirlpools.

The dissipative imperative built into the Second Law is behind everything that happens in the universe - it structures the matter that life is made of, shapes the organization of living organisms, and it shapes their behavior - all to maximize their effectiveness at dissipating energy gradients.

In the "behavior"category we also find human social behavior, which has exactly the same roots as the behavior of bacteria or birds, or the operation of a whirlpool. The specifics of what behavior emerges - the social and political structures, the economic systgems etc. - are governed by local physical circumstances like climate, weather, resources, geographic location etc. But as human societies gain the ability/need to use more and more energy, they develop hierarchy and the attendant coercion just as naturally as a hurricane develops an eyewall.

Do you really think this is a comfort zone? It completely eliminates any hope that human free will might somehow pull our chesnuts out of the fire. That thought is anything but comforting. But instead of being false, I've become pretty sure that it's true.

You may think this is just over-intellectualized Proglodyte prattle -- and you would be correct -- but it is important to not the fact that since they buy into this "all society is coerced" they believe that gives them the excuse to coerce you beneath the heel of their socialist boot.

Pay attention, there will be a test (of wills) later.

[Chris_]

GliderGuider (15,469 posts)

18. Mother's Day is mawkish, sentimental, pro-breeding propaganda.
 
On the other hand, our parents' behavior is understandable - when most of our parents had us, the walls of the future hadn't closed in quite as tightly as they have now.

You should get a job with Hallmark.  You'd be great.

[Celtic Rose]

According to the survey conducted by Satoshi Kanazawa, a researcher at the London School of Economics (LSE), women lose a quarter of their urge to have children with every 15 extra IQ points.

So, DUmmie wymins with an IQ of 60 or above shouldn't be breeding........hell, we've known that for years.....but they breed anyway.

Dang, it is a good thing I wasn't born stupid.  I've wanted a large family for as long as I can remember, and my IQ was tested and came back pretty high when I was a little girl. 

Society looks down on women who decide to settle down and focus on having a family, and realistically it is economically challenging for a woman not to work in many cases.  Therefore, women end up having to make the decision between becoming educated to potentially have a better job, but put off children, or start having children early and facing more financial struggles. 

[jukin]

The irony of the DUches talking about anything IQ, other than their lack thereof.

[JohnnyReb]

I was "exposed" to the Katie Curic(sp) Show yesterday. It was about infertility in women. A lady doctor specialist on infertility explained why more women were infertile. Prime child baring years and best years for conceiving are between 16 and 28. After 28 years of age, a woman's ability to conceive begins to decline at 7% a year and then drops rapidly after age 35 until most women of age 40 are infertile and women age 45 are infertile. She did mention very rare exceptions. She also mentioned how multiple sex partners and ST D's were responsible for many women being unable to conceive.

So taking all that into consideration, women who put off conception in an effort to further their education, their careers or to just whore around a little longer may be the reasons for a decline in birth rate among them and not because of higher IQs.

[jtyangel]

And of course the worker's paradise can thrive...without workers.

Oh, to be one of the enlightened.


You may think this is just over-intellectualized Proglodyte prattle -- and you would be correct -- but it is important to not the fact that since they buy into this "all society is coerced" they believe that gives them the excuse to coerce you beneath the heel of their socialist boot.

Pay attention, there will be a test (of wills) later.

So what makes those super geniuses I Over there not think their beliefs weren't coerced too. Admittedly they have said they are emotional animals along with the masses so it would behoove the super intelligent there to consider thy could be wrong and 'coerced' too. In the interest of intellectual integrity at the very least;)

[Dori]

How was the IQ measured?  By book smarts?

There are all different kinds of IQ.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

So what makes those super geniuses I Over there not think their beliefs weren't coerced too. Admittedly they have said they are emotional animals along with the masses so it would behoove the super intelligent there to consider thy could be wrong and 'coerced' too. In the interest of intellectual integrity at the very least;)

Liberalism absolutely is coercive. That's why anyone who strays is a racist, bigot, homophobe, sexist, theocratic dominionist science hating fascist. That is why the liberal rage machine heaps torrents of abuse on anyone who is denounced.

Is it hypocritical?

Yes.

But that's the point of hypocrisy: use a phony, ginned-up moral outrage to enforce rules you do not live by so as to gain power for yourself.

Do liberals care about racism?

No. They have left the black community devastated with fatherless families and government interventions.

Do they want racism to go away?

No. They need the votes gained from screaming "Racism!"

But, by God's long ears, they will use cries of racism to coerce you either into conforming with them or at least silencing your dissent.

[USA4ME]

I find the funniest thing about threads like this on Skin's island is that the primitives would point at it and say "See, this is an example of the types of intelligent discussions we have here." On one level I agree, that is, this sort of stupidity is the height of their ability to reason.

.

[98ZJUSMC]

DonCoquixote (6,133 posts)
114. I'll see that and raise you

religion.

The ugly truth is, the reason why every agressive religion wants large families, they not only want to control the gene pool, they want to drown everyone else in it. That is why ., despite the fact all religions have progressive factions, the clergy in all religions, be they the Mormons, the Muslims, the Catholics, the Baptists, etc, all want large poor families; they make for cheap labor and bad educations.

Congratulations.  That the most idiotic thing I have read in months and from the cesspool, too.

That takes some doing, (d)oUcherocket.

cheap labor and bad educations

I'll compare a Catholic education to a public indoctrination any time you like, sweetpea.

I was "exposed" to the Katie Curic(sp) Show yesterday.

Sorry.

[Carl]

GliderGuider (15,469 posts)

75. Based on the fact that the whole human species is probably 100x into overshoot.

Last edited Tue Aug 6, 2013, 01:08 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

And that the level of our activity is making the planet unfit for habitation, whether by humans or many other species.

The level of human activity that can qualified as sustainable over the long haul (say the next 100,000 years) is probably on the order of 10 to 20 million people, but only if their energy consumption is at pre-Paleolithic levels. (http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Sustainability.html)

Based on that probability, I don't need to be any kind of a a eugenicist for my proposals to appear catastrophic and unreasonable. I certainly don't expect anyone to formulate policy on this basis.

Please help by reducing our population by 1.

[jukin]

Liberalism absolutely is coercive. That's why anyone who strays is a racist, bigot, homophobe, sexist, theocratic dominionist science hating fascist. That is why the liberal rage machine heaps torrents of abuse on anyone who is denounced.

Is it hypocritical?

Yes.

But that's the point of hypocrisy: use a phony, ginned-up moral outrage to enforce rules you do not live by so as to gain power for yourself.

Do liberals care about racism?

No. They have left the black community devastated with fatherless families and government interventions.

Do they want racism to go away?

No. They need the votes gained from screaming "Racism!"

But, by God's long ears, they will use cries of racism to coerce you either into conforming with them or at least silencing your dissent.

I used to think that this was just the law of unintended consequences, lack of experience, or just plain stupidity. I know not that leftism is evil. They know what they are doing and it is evil.

[seahorse513]

IMHO, thanks to a government that supports abortions and same sex marriages, expect the American birthrate to take a virtual nosedive!!

[miskie]

You should get a job with Hallmark.  You'd be great.