Children Of Older Mothers Are Taller And Do Better In School

[misery guts]

I think that's often because masculine features on a woman, or feminine features on a man, will be unattractive for them, but will likely confer beauty on to their opposite gendered children.

 

[Ktbridge]

I had kids in my twenties,it depends, I don't know if I would have the same stamina now , like in my twenties. But Peat knows his stuff.

 

[bobbybobbob]

Rich people have kids later in life because they life in wealthy, highly competitive regions, with high wages. Modern high-IQ wages make late reproduction economically advantageous. Notably smart people move to Hong Kong or Stockholm or London or NYC and then wait until late in life to have one or two kids, if they reproduce at all.

High IQ is dysgenic in the modern industrialized world. High IQ children are more likely to wind up never mating or having strange mental problems like homosexuality. I saw some survey showing most MIT grad school students are virgins. High IQ people convince themselves of many stupid ideas that obviously reduce their reproductive fitness and also that of their children.

The headline of this thread confirms how modern industrialized society itself is dysgenic. The most able are rationally disincentived from reproduction. Because they can earn so much more by waiting, and also because dumb people are highly incentivized by welfare programs to reproduce. It's a ridiculous stretch to reach for some sort of hormonal/biological lens to make sense of the headline when heredity and economics/sociology work perfectly.

IQ testing finds that growing up in urban areas raises IQ. This of course leads to the conclusion that city dwellers must be smarter than the rural types. This is actually the essential force behind the so-called Flynn Effect, as global society has undergone mass urbanization over the last 100 years. Personally, I think what's really going on is that if you ask a well adjusted rural kid which colored shape doesn't belong in the set of weird colored shapes he'll tell you to **** off because it's a stupid question, and so he scores a wrong answer. The over-stimulated urban kid, however, has been bombarded with this artificial nonsense for years, and he picks the "right" shape.

Having kids as young as practical is almost certainly best. This study is dumb. It's really about how screwed up our societies are.

 

[m_arch]

My dad was in his 40's and mum was 37. I had a rough birth, C-section, not breast fed. I didn't turn out great physically, but not bad either. I'm 6"1, same height as my dad. My step brother who is a lot older than me seems to be healthier physically - but also not as much a thinker like I am. I think I had good genes - family members on both sides have lived into their late 90s. But epigenetically I've been pretty ****88 over with microwave dinners etc for most of my childhood. I'm not particularly smart, but I like smart people. I feel I have a preference for wisdom over intelligence - sometimes wisdom needs to come from intelligence, like in Ray's case, but I think you can also deduce wisdom using philosophy and logic from others who have had intelligence, without actually requiring the intelligence yourself.

I was friends with the 'nerds' in school, and yes they are less likely to reproduce. A lot of them now in their mid 20's still haven't ever dated as far as i'm aware. Some of them have really high expectations for women too, some of them have gone Buddhist zen "it doesn't matter I wont force it" and others just seem content waiting. It doesn't seem natural from a biological point of view; but perhaps it is our next-step evolution?

I remember we had a thread on here which talked about some men being attracted to a different type of woman when they felt good, out of the stress response and relaxed. A lot said they were attracted to taller slender women with larger heads. Perhaps this is an evolution as well. Generative energy talks about the evolution of man. We've gone from ape to man, in the process losing physical strength but gaining a bigger brain. Ray thinks we'll go from man to man-sized infant, following the same process. A loss of physical strength and protection for a bigger brain again. It seems possible if we can develop more tools to protect us and feed us.

I've always been attracted to extremely feminine women - lots of thick hair, small hands and feet, large hips, small waist. I guess you'd say the reptilian biological type of attraction. Its funny, because I haven't even decided if I want children or not yet, i'm attracted to the "baby-maker" type. Although i'm in many ways "nerdy" (i'm on here aren't I?), I also have this inescapable duality with the more "primal".

High IQ children are more likely to wind up never mating or having strange mental problems like homosexuality.

Is it a strange mental problem? It seems to be rampant in other species of animals, it seems to have been rampant throughout history when its been socially accepted by society. Maybe its an evolutionary development, even.

 

[dd99]

I just don't know very many people I guess and I also used to have beautiful blond hair

Oh no, does that mean I have to be on the lookout for the faux kippah balding pattern, too?:)

 

[Such_Saturation]

Oh no, does that mean I have to be on the lookout for the faux kippah balding pattern, too?:)

No I mean it turned into the color of wet dirt at the age of ten.

 

[XPlus]

No I mean it turned into the color of wet dirt at the age of ten.

Shampoo with chamomile tea

 

[Such_Saturation]

Shampoo with chamomile tea

Doesn't that just color it yellow?

 

[Such_Saturation]

I don't even know if they have time to sleep in MIT graduate school...

 

[XPlus]

Rich people have kids later in life because they life in wealthy, highly competitive regions, with high wages. Modern high-IQ wages make late reproduction economically advantageous. Notably smart people move to Hong Kong or Stockholm or London or NYC and then wait until late in life to have one or two kids, if they reproduce at all.

High IQ is dysgenic in the modern industrialized world. High IQ children are more likely to wind up never mating or having strange mental problems like homosexuality. I saw some survey showing most MIT grad school students are virgins. High IQ people convince themselves of many stupid ideas that obviously reduce their reproductive fitness and also that of their children.

The headline of this thread confirms how modern industrialized society itself is dysgenic. The most able are rationally disincentived from reproduction. Because they can earn so much more by waiting, and also because dumb people are highly incentivized by welfare programs to reproduce. It's a ridiculous stretch to reach for some sort of hormonal/biological lens to make sense of the headline when heredity and economics/sociology work perfectly.

IQ testing finds that growing up in urban areas raises IQ. This of course leads to the conclusion that city dwellers must be smarter than the rural types. This is actually the essential force behind the so-called Flynn Effect, as global society has undergone mass urbanization over the last 100 years. Personally, I think what's really going on is that if you ask a well adjusted rural kid which colored shape doesn't belong in the set of weird colored shapes he'll tell you to **** off because it's a stupid question, and so he scores a wrong answer. The over-stimulated urban kid, however, has been bombarded with this artificial nonsense for years, and he picks the "right" shape.

Having kids as young as practical is almost certainly best. This study is dumb. It's really about how screwed up our societies are.

Interesting points. Although I don't agree with everything.
What you described of the society becoming dysgenic, reminds me of Idiocracy - a good but underrated movie.

I don't think richer people having children later in life to do mostly with how much they can acquire before.
Mass urbanisation made life more complex. We now require more time to be nurtured as children and a lot of us are born to busy parents, who barely have time for us. We need more time to mature. Then, we find out that it's necessary to be educated, for the most part of our youth. We need to find a job and work for long hours so that we can afford a home and good living for a family. All this can be rationalised since we live longer in modern times.
There are also a lot more of us in an interconnected world. It's difficult to find a partner with so many options and possibilities.

It's true that a lot of the smarter people move from rural areas to the city but that doesn't make city people smarter - it makes the rural people smarter.
Even if you look at history, smarter people who shined in urban areas, come from the boonies.
City people in my experience are more competitive and their smarts sometimes is relative to how competitive their life gets but being well-adapted to competition doesn't necessarily reflect genius. It just caters for the need of survival.
I observe that city people are usually more hardworking, strive for more income and get better education but at large, their hard work and life output manifests in driving corporate profit.
How do guys with a CPAs and CFAs really add up to the intelligence momentum? - by creating another financial crisis?

Finally, the thing about IQ. There's a good question of whether an IQ test is a valid way of measuring intelligence.
Mind that this argument can come with its own set of questions.

Let's take a sample of IQ questions and try to analyse it:
Find the answer that best completes the analogy:
Book is to Reading as Fork is to:

a. drawing
b. writing
c. stirring
d. eating
f. f***ing

The answer is: d; eating. Fork is to eating is like book is to reading.

How exactly is eating with a fork analogous to reading a book.
Sounds like the kind of argument you'd have with your everyday retard or some underemployed philosophy major.

A smart person's mind doesn't work in that way. It doesn't approach things in the context of other people's point of view, first - and then attempts to best approximate their judgement.
It tries to discover objective information about the subject on hand and relate that to different pieces of prior knowledge acquired in similar manner. It objectively considers different possibilities. Then, it benchmarks the outcome with ideas of other people before making a final judgement or decision. "Perceive, Think, Act".
That's a large part of the difference between intelligence and dogma - creativity vs. impotence.

 

[XPlus]

Doesn't that just color it yellow?

I thought it looked nice.

 

[xiaohua]

Let's take a sample of IQ questions and try to analyse it:
Find the answer that best completes the analogy:
Book is to Reading as Fork is to:

a. drawing
b. writing
c. stirring
d. eating
f. f***ing

The answer is: d; eating. Fork is to eating is like book is to reading.

How exactly is eating with a fork analogous to reading a book.
Sounds like the kind of argument you'd have with your everyday retard or some underemployed philosophy major.

It's about abstract reasoning, being able to make connections between things which, on the surface of it, are unrelated. I imagine this skill is a prerequisite to having original thoughts and synthesising ideas at an advanced level.

 

[XPlus]

It's about abstract reasoning, being able to make connections between things which, on the surface of it, are unrelated. I imagine this skill is a prerequisite to having original thoughts and synthesising ideas at an advanced level.

Yes, I think you got it right, presumably.

Book relates to reading just like fork relates to eating.
In that sense, both instances relate to each other because each contains an action that relates to an object.

D is the correct answer but you still can use a book for reading just like you can use a fork for stirring or a book for eating.
I'm sure there's a genius out there who'd find a way to make a better use of a fork in writing.

You can write, draw, eat and stir with it.
According to the question above, this guy should get 4 times his IQ score .

 

[Hugh Johnson]

I think that's often because masculine features on a woman, or feminine features on a man, will be unattractive for them, but will likely confer beauty on to their opposite gendered children.

Like wide square faces on women?

victoria's secret models faces - Google Search

 

[Parsifal]

I think that Ray wrote in Generative Energy that women even after menopause could have children and that often we find calcified foetus in the wombs of very old women after dissecating them?

 

[Such_Saturation]

Yes, I think you got it right, presumably.

Book relates to reading just like fork relates to eating.
In that sense, both instances relate to each other because each contains an action that relates to an object.

D is the correct answer but you still can use a book for reading just like you can use a fork for stirring or a book for eating.
I'm sure there's a genius out there who'd find a way to make a better use of a fork in writing.

You can write, draw, eat and stir with it.
According to the question above, this guy should get 4 times his IQ score .

He'd certainly get admitted to an overpriced design academy

 

[tobieagle]

One thing Peat actually said:

A bigger head to body ratio makes people seem more attractive/cute.

 

[dd99]

Actors in general have larger heads.

 

[bobbybobbob]

One thing Peat actually said:

A bigger head to body ratio makes people seem more attractive/cute.

 

[GelatinGoblin]

Older mothers have less Testosterone levels. I have heard about Androgens lowering IQ. Kind of a shame.