In the final part of the 2Blowhards interview with Greg Cochran, a reader brings up the dysgenic trends in fertility with respect to IQ. Greg makes the perhaps underemphasized point that this is primarily associated with highly educated women. I think that fact is obscured by the obviousness of the “demographic transition” on entire populations. Within populations I’ve heard that IQ in men is either unrelated or positively associated with greater numbers of offspring (UPDATE: See Jason Malloy’s comment). So we seem to be seeing differential selection in intelligence starting from a situation in which men and women have the same average IQ (though with different variance). It should be remembered that gender dimorphism takes longer to evolve than other adaptions, so don’t expect big changes any time soon. Another selection pressure often overlooked is the city as death trap, leading us to idealize rural life and consider New Jerseyans chopped liver by selecting for people less willing to leave country for town. Similarly, the selection effect I’m suggesting may operate more on a woman’s lack of interest in higher education than intelligence per se. There may be changes in political ideology as well. Research suggests more feminist wives aren’t as happy as ones with traditionalist attitudes and those that belong to more conservative religious denominations have more sex and more orgasms than the Church Lady would think appropriate. I hesitate to say that will result in gender dimorphism in ideology as sexist men earn more money but my guess is that the likes of David Frum will be disappointed to find the right would rather pander to the likes of Sarah Palin than him.
January 31, 2009
Gender dimorphism in intelligence in our future?
Posted by teageegeepea under Uncategorized[28] Comments
Entitled to an Opinion 
February 1, 2009 at 1:27 pm
“Within populations I’ve heard that IQ in men is either unrelated or positively associated with greater numbers of offspring”
Both IQ and education are related to lower numbers of children in men as well as women. But income/wealth is positively related to number of children for men and negatively for women. The selection pressure for male wealth is relatively strong, even within developed nations:
“Even the weakest selection gradients observed for male wealth in
humans are as strong as or stronger than selection gradients reported
from field studies of other species. Thus, selection on male wealth in
contemporary humans appears to be ubiquitous and substantial in strength.”
The association for men, according to this paper, is driven by the disproportionate amount of low status men that don’t have children at all.
But there is some suggestive evidence that birth rates may be higher than average among the very rich, who aren’t well represented in these kinds of surveys. Same for the very poor (e.g. the homeless), who would also strengthen the association.
February 2, 2009 at 4:29 pm
It seems a bit judgmental to say “dysgenic.” Evolution is just adaptation to environment – no good or bad about it. Some may value intelligence, but there’s definitely a case that a reduction in average intelligence equals a reduction in suffering. From an antinatalist perspective, a reduction in average sentience must be almost as good as a reduction in the number of sentient beings. If a person has to be brought into existence, better a person who’s made happy by donuts and television and church and babies than a person who expects some kind of elusive meaning from life.
The interesting question is whether the negative education/fertility trend is sustainable, or whether it’s a sort of parasitism situation (as with genetic sociopaths). Obviously octuplets with questionable genetic pedigree are not going to survive unless there are high-g folks around to invent and operate the life support apparatus that sustains them.
February 2, 2009 at 5:54 pm
I don’t really have anything to add except that:
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003689.html
indicates sexual dimorphism is pretty slow to evolve relative to non-dimorphic traits, all things being equal.
February 2, 2009 at 6:00 pm
“It seems a bit judgmental to say “dysgenic.” Evolution is just adaptation to environment – no good or bad about it.”
‘Dysgenics’/’eugenics’ are intended as political value judgments. And that’s fine and useful, as long as the distinction is understood between evolutionary biology and the politics of evolutionary biology. (much as I think Kyoto needs to be distinguished from global warming)
“If a person has to be brought into existence, better a person who’s made happy by donuts and television and church and babies than a person who expects some kind of elusive meaning from life.”
If all it took were donuts! All things equal, less intelligent people = less happy societies.
“The interesting question is whether the negative education/fertility trend is sustainable, or whether it’s a sort of parasitism situation”
I do wonder if we should expect the relationship to stabilize or reverse after we’ve dropped below a certain IQ threshold. Is it just in developed or high IQ nations where IQ and fertility have a negative relationship? Or do nations with IQs in the 80s and 70s also have lower birth rates among the more intelligent/educated? (of course, even the dynamics in these nations might be driven by the existence of high IQ nations)
February 2, 2009 at 7:09 pm
I suppose it is judgmental, but the term has had that common meaning going back to Galton.
Matt, I did indeed make that point but I thank you for providing the link.
February 2, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Wolfers’ data seem to reflect people correctly rating themselves in terms of how well their life is going (compared to how well it could possibly go) based on comparative income. If poorer people were saying “Yeah my life is a ten out of ten!” to this kind of question, they’d merely be wrong.
Also, Wolfers’ data shows that more donuts –> more happiness. Only in rich societies can poor people afford donuts. (Only half tongue-in-cheek – obesity varies with national income as well, though within a developed country it tends to be a symptom of poverty.)
February 8, 2009 at 12:10 pm
One other thing – there are many studies that find national intelligence and suicide rates to be directly correlated. And analysis of the Terman Genetic Study of Genius (gifted kids with average IQ of 151) revealed that the gifted kids ended up having a suicide rate triple the (already high) US rate.
Suicide rates are undeniably a more objective measure of suffering than self-report.
February 8, 2009 at 12:36 pm
I agree on the self-report thing.
February 8, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Sister Y,
Do you think intelligent/developed nations are ‘correctly’ more happy (as you state in comment #6 based on income), or do you believe they are ‘objectively’ less happy (as you state in comment #7 based on suicide rate)?
Several points:
1) Your link does not work, but I assume you are referencing the papers by Martin Voracek. These papers do not argue that intelligent people are suffering more than less intelligent people. Voracek relies on the theories of de Catanzaro to help explain the relationship between suicide and intelligence. Here suicide isn’t a pure proxy of suffering, but also an index of your ability to weigh self-destruction like a rational choice:
“[…] it may take an intelligent animal to know when the situation is hopeless, to realize that purpose for life is removed in those circumstances, and that death can be self-induced” (de Catanzaro, 1981, p. 154).
2) Contrary to the Termites (an unusual group) intelligence is associated with less depression and better mental health at the individual level in the GSS, a large, representative survey of the US.
3) On the other hand, subjective well-being and suicide are inversely related at the national level.
4) Conflating the two levels of analysis is called the ecological fallacy. (e.g. states with higher %s of blacks in the US are more Republican, but that does not mean blacks themselves are more Republican) The small minority of people committing suicide aren’t the same people self-reporting more happiness in developed nations.
5) So a nation can have both a population that is generally more happy than the world average, but at the same time have a minority who are more depressed than what is generally found at the bottom in other nations.
One explanation is that a more successful population could also be a population with more pressure to succeed, which might be good for most, but terrible for the least able.
i.e. If you can make it over the lowest hurdle to success, like most people, then you’re in the promised land; but if you can’t, then the distance between you and “normal society” is starker than it would be in a less successful society.
February 8, 2009 at 2:18 pm
“as you state in comment #7 based on suicide rate”
Change ‘state’ to ‘imply’ here.
Unless there was some sort of discrepancy between reported well-being and suicide in the Terman study you are hinting at.
February 8, 2009 at 2:50 pm
“Contrary to the Termites (an unusual group)”
To add to this a little, people with intelligence scores more than two or three standard deviations outside the normal population range, may well have an unusual number of genetic variants associated with neurological disorder. (just like people with IQs 2 or 3 standard deviations lower)
The Ashkenazi are perhaps a good example of this (e.g. Cochran/Harpending and ‘overclocking’). And in my link above, higher intelligence is associated with more mental illness among Ashkenazi Jews, whereas the reverse is true for the general population[*].
Still, a replication of the Terman study would be helpful. Currently I know of no suicide data for the ongoing Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth, but it was found that they were no more depressed as adolescents than normal IQ people. So it is not clear to me yet that genius IQ people have lower well-being.
It could also be bimodal for reasons similar to those I listed above. Social pressure to succeed past ones potential could be psychologically harmful. There are high expectations for everyone with a genius IQ to succeed, but if they lack certain other critical traits they could be internally devastated by falling too far behind their peer group and social expectations.
[*] If there is a strong enough selection pressure to maintain this higher intelligence, then we would expect either a gradual replacement of harmful IQ alleles with non-harmful IQ alleles, or the retention of new alleles that neutralize the harmful affects of the IQ alleles, while retaining their affect on intelligence.
February 8, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Sister Y herself has made the point about gender differences in suicide reflecting the greater access males have to efficient means of suicide, with those differences dissappearing among veterinarians. So it could be that suicide is easier for more intelligent populaces.
February 8, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Your link does not work
Crap, so it doesn’t. Here’s the abstract of the 2005 Voracek paper, at least.
The Wolfers question asks, not really about happiness or suffering, but about how well one’s life is going compared to how well it could go. This seems to almost flat-out ask people to rate themselves based on comparative economic well-being – and the Wolfers study only correlates self-report of well-being with national income, not with intelligence (though of course there is evidence for that correlation, too).
Here suicide isn’t a pure proxy of suffering, but also an index of your ability to weigh self-destruction like a rational choice
I realize this (it supports the model of suicide as an evolutionarily adapted behavior) – but, emphasis on pure.
Re: ecological fallacy – yes, but the IQ/suicide correlation survives controlling for “type of national IQ estimation, national GDP, stableness and recency measures for suicide rates, and rates of adult literacy, urbanization and Roman Catholics.” (The last being the funniest and most obviously important.)
The Terman kids are indeed a special group – a special, sad group. If the Idiocracy effect means fewer of these sad people are born, that’s at least one positive consequence.
February 8, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Just one other thing – people with children kill themselves less than people without children, so if the IQ/suicide correlation really exists, it could be a secondary effect of the IQ/less babies correlation.
Intelligence –> ability to commit suicide – yes, possibly. But high IQ professions like finance don’t show elevated suicide rates – only special professions like veterinarians and doctors who have access to lethal chemicals. (Also police, who have access to guns.)
I feel a bit silly as a suicide arguing that suicides have higher IQs. “No, really, it’s because I’m just too intelligent . . . ” But I do suspect that more sentience is more suffering.
February 8, 2009 at 4:06 pm
On the other hand, subjective well-being and suicide are inversely related at the national level.
This might be a typo but the study you cite finds that subjective well-being and suicide are, paradoxically, directly related (but not significantly) which of course detracts from any support an IQ/suicide correlation would give to my IQ/suffering hypothesis. (Apparently this ecological finding is okay, but not the ecological suicide/IQ data?)
Your study also finds no correlation between depression rates and suicide, which is in accord with other studies I’ve seen that find no significant relationship between regional rates of depression in the United States and suicide (literally r=0.00 in one study). Yes – suicide actually isn’t all that related to “depression” as it’s conceived under the DSM-IV. I’m not sure “depression” is a good proxy for suffering, though. Specific types of suffering – burdensomeness and failure of connection – seem to cause suicide reliably, especially coupled with access to means of suicide.
February 8, 2009 at 4:42 pm
“The Wolfers question asks, not really about happiness or suffering, but about how well one’s life is going compared to how well it could go.”
No, that’s just all I linked above. This has been demonstrated with happiness questions, life satisfaction questions, and dozens of other questions from multiple surveys that gauge stress, need, anxiety, experiences, affect, health, emotions, etc. And they all form a basic picture: suffering declines with development. Money is very, very important to human well-being. And intelligence is a key way of acquiring money.
“Re: ecological fallacy – yes, but the IQ/suicide correlation survives controlling for “type of national IQ estimation, national GDP, stableness and recency measures for suicide rates, and rates of adult literacy, urbanization and Roman Catholics.””
It’s still an ecological fallacy. It would be both empirically and theoretically surprising if intelligence was associated with lower well-being within nations. Well-being is strongly associated with income in nearly every country, and income is significantly linked to intelligence in nearly every country as well.
The GSS data, linked above, supports my position.
“so if the IQ/suicide correlation really exists, it could be a secondary effect of the IQ/less babies correlation.”
Thanks. These kind of variables underline the very really possibility (and my belief) that intelligence really reduces suffering rather than causes it, by putting more options on the table.
Rather than feeling sorry for the Terman kids, maybe we should really feel sorry for their equally depressed lower IQ counterparts, who are, in some sense, deprived of the same level of free will. People who suffer without ever being able to realize a solution. People who suffer, but can’t escape their childish religious fears in order to deal with it (e.g. suffering in hell forever if they commit suicide).
If depression decreases for the population as a whole, but the suicide rate increases at the margins, that probably means that increasing secular comfort with suicide represents just one more way that life has improved because of intelligence and development. If these same suicidal people had lived with a lower IQ in a less developed nation, they would be forced by circumstance to continue in a life defined by needless suffering.
On the other hand, if suicide rates increase while population measures of happiness are declining rapidly, as we see in Russia and many of its former satellites, then that is a cause for concern. The suicide rate represents a larger problem affecting the bulk of the population in negative way.
In conclusion, sentience probably does not cause suffering; it likely reduces suffering by:
A) Allowing us to make more satisfying sense of our own cloudy emotions (e.g. less intelligent people seem to drink more to escape their negative emotions because they can’t mentally engage these, often confusing, emotional puzzles in any productive manner).
B) Allowing us more successful proximate strategies for dealing with our suffering. This includes everything from changing your diet, to getting the right kind of medicine, and, in extreme cases, yes, even suicide.
C) Allowing us to better acquire the resources associated with well-being. People that can learn demanding skill-sets can earn more money, which gives them greater access to coveted positional goods (like higher quality mates and social status), as well as goods that contribute to well-being in an absolute sense (e.g. high quality medical care, leisure goods, comfort goods, etc).
February 8, 2009 at 4:59 pm
“On the other hand, subjective well-being and suicide are inversely related at the national level.”
I’m sorry, I did mean to communicate that higher subjective well-being at the national level was associated with a higher suicide rate. Which is what makes sense in the context of my comment (#9). Esp. see points number 4 and 5.
Yes – suicide actually isn’t all that related to “depression” as it’s conceived under the DSM-IV.
Again, this is an ecological fallacy. Depression and suicide are tightly linked at the individual level. Two thirds of suicides are clinically depressed.
February 8, 2009 at 5:12 pm
It’s still an ecological fallacy.
Well, I’m not denying it’s ecological-level data – just saying it’s kind of sweet ecological data.
If depression decreases for the population as a whole, but the suicide rate increases at the margins, that probably means that increasing secular comfort with suicide represents just one more way that life has improved because of intelligence and development. If these same suicidal people had lived with a lower IQ in a less developed nation, they would be forced by circumstance to continue in a life defined by needless suffering.
I really like this hypothesis. It a hypothesis that, I think, receives inadequate consideration. Still, it would be better if suffering people had never been born at all.
Well-being is strongly associated with income in nearly every country, and income is significantly linked to intelligence in nearly every country as well.
Another thing that is tightly correlated with national income is income inequality (negatively) – the poorer the country/region, the more income inequality. But income inequality is a better predictor of many social harms (like homicide) than poverty. Perhaps income is just a proxy for high equality, which is really driving happiness.
You make good arguments as to why there might be correlations between IQ and happiness. I think there are equally compelling arguments why they might be negatively correlated. Both effects probably interact.
February 8, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Two thirds of suicides are clinically depressed.
The author doesn’t cite a source for that, but I’ve written a whole polemic about the bullshit “psychological autopsy” studies that statistics like that are based on. (Other studies say 90% . . . )
There are many other problems with the depression/suicide causative hypothesis, such as DSM-IV “Major Depressive Disorder” not being particularly scientifically robust, and the high rate of suicide in elderly people versus the average age of onset of depression being around 20.
February 8, 2009 at 6:20 pm
SY,
What about this study for the 90%?:
“Twenty-seven studies comprising 3275 suicides were included, of which, 87.3% (SD 10.0%) had been diagnosed with a mental disorder prior to their death.”
***
“I really like this hypothesis. It a hypothesis that, I think, receives inadequate consideration. Still, it would be better if suffering people had never been born at all.”
Cool. Note though, the implication is that selecting by intelligence won’t have an effect on whether or not they are born. Just on how long they have to suffer. And more intelligence = less time suffering.
Perhaps income is just a proxy for high equality, which is really driving happiness.
The research seems to find that absolute levels of income are more important than relative income within and between societies:
If anything, Ms. Stevenson and Mr. Wolfers say, absolute income seems to matter more than relative income. In the United States, about 90 percent of people in households making at least $250,000 a year called themselves “very happy” in a recent Gallup Poll. In households with income below $30,000, only 42 percent of people gave that answer. But the international polling data suggests that the under-$30,000 crowd might not be happier if they lived in a poorer country.”
February 8, 2009 at 6:48 pm
87.3% (SD 10.0%) had been diagnosed with a mental disorder prior to their death
That is a fascinating meta-study, thanks – on a first reading, my main problem with it would be that it’s tracking not just depression, but any and all “mental disorders” and even crap like “alcohol use” is coded as a disorder, not to mention “intermittent depressive disorder” and “neurotic depression” (i.e., they’re not even using the piss-poor standards of the DSM-IV).
And more intelligence = less time suffering.
I think I have to concede this.
The Daniels/Ross study on willingness to pay for housing square footage is so creative – I love it. Why are economics papers so much sexier than other domains’?
February 8, 2009 at 10:05 pm
I’ve heard that IQ is correlated with income but not wealth. Should we expect income to make people happier than wealth? Megan McArdle had a post on the causes of bankruptcy which noted that those who go bankrupt tend to consume at levels of people far above their incomes. During that time period before they lose it all do you think they are as happy as people with higher income but similar consumption levels?
I haven’t checked out the Daniels/Ross paper yet, but Alex Tabarrok has a post on whether there are negative externalities to houses larger than yours in your neighborhood here.
UPDATE: The modeling stuff in the paper was beyond me, but I think I got significant value of it anyway. It’s a good example to bring up in my other post on convincing evidence. I was interested to see the use of Bayesian testing and the reference to Caplan, who gives more weight to survey data and (especially) intuition than I.
February 8, 2009 at 11:05 pm
The paper that decided that IQ was not associated with wealth in the NLSY showed just the opposite:
IQ____Net worth______Income 75____$5775_________$15,020
80____$10,500_______$18,467
85____$24,250_______$27,700
90____$37,500_______$30,881
95____$52,500_______$34,985
100____$57,550_______$36,826
105____$83,918_______$40,628
110____$71,445_______$40,884
115____$94,500_______$45,675
120____$127,500______$48,681
125____$133,250______$55,555
It only disappeared the obvious relationship using some dubious controls, IMO. This was reported like such:
“You don’t have to be smart to be rich. Individuals with below-average IQ test scores were just as wealthy as brainiacs, finds a national survey.”
Uh huh. And in what universe is 24,250 “just as wealthy as” 57,550, “just as wealthy as” 133,250?
IQ____Net worth
85____$24,250
100____$57,550
125___$133,250
Joel Schneider made the same criticisms.
February 8, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Thanks for that. I might have been thinking of some of Half Sigma‘s posts.
October 3, 2011 at 9:24 am
“Idiocracy effect”
I do not buy that there is such a phenomenon. I have no numbers, but the lower classes clearly produced smart people, I don’t buy that being born lower class = stupid (I am, though). I would, though, prefer to be born by academics than workers.
I also disagree that being an antinatalist means having a high IQ — I am one and am mentally retarded (got an IQ of 68-9, don’t remember exactly).
This is also part of the reason for me being an antinatalist: that I was born dumb. It is hellish to be dumb, really hellish. Can’t learn a thing! Why did my low IQ parents had to procreate, imposing their low IQ onto their child (me)?
October 3, 2011 at 5:32 pm
There are smart children from the lower classes and dumb children of academics. But most of the time the children of academics will be smarter than lower class kids. Most dumb people don’t even think about ideas like antinatalism. Ideologies and philosophical positions appeal to smarter folks. If you have the IQ you claim, you are unusual.
June 20, 2012 at 6:20 pm
[…] relayed that claim from Greg Cochran a while back, but inspired by this Half Sigma post I decided to present the […]
August 21, 2013 at 10:01 pm
[…] relationship between happiness, dysgenics, and antinatalism is parsed a bit further in an online comment thread that I’ve kept on file. Feel free to click the link and put on your thinking cap, but the meat is […]