The Barren Wombs of Smart Women
That dummies tend to have more babies than smarties has been recognized as a problem for decades now so the update to the discussion below is useful. It might however be noted that it is a mistake to see high IQs as a direct CAUSE of fewer children. There may be other factors involved. For instance, high IQ women will undoubtedly spend more time in the educational system, where they are heavily exposed to the "anti-men" diatribes of feminists. Being anti-men is not a good start to family formation -- JR
A statistical analysis from England suggests that a woman’s IQ is inversely proportional to her desire to breed. This, in turn, suggests that the world will grow dumber with every new day.
In his book The Intelligence Paradox, London School of Economics researcher Satoshi Kanazawa surveyed data from the United Kingdom’s National Child Development Study. Controlling for variables such as education and income, he reached the following conclusions:
* With each increase of 15 IQ points, a woman’s urge to reproduce is diminished by 25%.
* The average IQ of women who want children is 5.6 points lower than those who don’t want them.
* Among all 45-year-old women in England, 20% are childless, but this figure rises to 43% among those with college degrees.
The paradox is that women who are measurably more intelligent based on IQ tests are dumber in terms of evolutionary survival instincts. Kanazawa writes:
"If any value is deeply evolutionarily familiar, it is reproductive success. If any value is truly unnatural, if there is one thing that humans (and all other species in nature) are decisively not designed for, it is voluntary childlessness. All living organisms in nature, including humans, are evolutionarily designed to reproduce. Reproductive success is the ultimate end of all biological existence."
Kanazawa’s findings correlate with a 2010 Pew survey that found women ages 40-44 with a master’s degree or higher are 60% more likely to be childless than women who never graduated high school.
Kanazawa is widely known as a “controversial” researcher, which is coded speech meaning that his results cause significant discomfort among those who swallow the reigning cultural dogma. In the past he has faced disapprobation, ridicule, and even job dismissal for publishing studies that claim black women are less attractive than women of other races due to their higher testosterone levels, sub-Saharan Africa’s poverty is caused by low IQ, intelligent men are less likely to cheat on their partners, and attractive people are more likely to produce female offspring. He also wrote that if Ann Coulter had been president in 2001, she would have dropped nuclear bombs on the Middle East and won the War on Terror “without a single American life lost.”
But it is specifically his research on race and intelligence that causes his critics to dismissively snort that he is a zero-credibility genocidal wackjob who peddles junk science riddled with huge methodological flaws that raise the terrifying notion of eugenics that has long been debunked and discredited because of, well, Hitler and everything.
Paul Gilroy, a colleague of Kanazawa’s at the London School of Economics, says: Kanazawa’s persistent provocations raise the issue of whether he can do his job effectively in a multi-ethnic, diverse and international institution.
In other words: His statistical findings do not jibe with our cultural dogma.
Despite all the jeers and catcalls, Kanazawa defends his research:
"The only responsibility scientists have is to the truth. Scientists are not responsible for the potential or actual consequences of the knowledge they create."
The most egregious blasphemy one can utter in today’s insanely stifling and repressive climate of intolerant egalitotalitarianism is to gently suggest that genetics play any role in determining intelligence differences and relative prosperity between individuals and social groups.
Yet (grab a hankie) that’s what the evidence suggests.
Despite the propaganda the media uses to try and blow out your eardrums, the scientific consensus suggests that adult IQ is roughly 75-85% inherited. But due to the currently taboo nature of this fact, Western researchers are unlikely to even suggest such things publicly without sacrificing their careers. The Chinese suffer no such ultimately dysgenic superstitions and are forging ahead in their attempts to crack the code. This might be one of the main reasons why the coming century could belong to them.
Further buttressing Kanazawa’s findings, global evidence suggests that high IQ tends to be negatively correlated with total fertility rate. J. Philippe Rushton’s r/K selection theory noted that parents who actually invested time and thought in nurturing their children tended to have fewer of them…and vice-versa.
Intelligent people have the reflective capacity to consider things such as whether they’d have the economic wherewithal to raise successful offspring, whereas dumber people tend to invest as much thought into reproduction as they do to defecation. The end result is an increasingly dysgenic world—Idiocracy made flesh.
Western sophisticates claim that the world already has enough people, and many tend to see it as a matter of conscience to not breed. The problem is that hordes of Third Worlders suffer no such ethical qualms. Paradoxically, the pampered First World utopian ideal that the world should be intelligent, sustainable, and filled only with children who are wanted could backfire and create a planet crammed almost exclusively with emotionally, financially, and intellectually deprived Third World bastards.
This wasn’t the case before feminism came along to empower women and free them from childbearing’s oppressive shackles. It wasn’t the case until Big Brother morphed into Big Daddy and financially penalized the intelligent for reproducing as it gave handouts that encouraged cretins to spawn. It wasn’t the case during the Victorian Era, when it wasn’t considered so déclassé for wealthy and intelligent women to have children and when it’s estimated that the mean Western IQ was nearly 14 points higher than it is now.
The grand irony is that by failing to breed, this new breed of woman will breed itself out of existence.
Obama general destroys career of Army officer to appease Muslims
During a press briefing, Army General Martin Dempsey, President Barack Obama's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, publicly lambasted Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Matthew Dooley, a 1994 graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and a highly decorated combat veteran. His reason: The course on Islamic Radicalism which LTC Dooley was teaching at the Joint Forces Staff College (JFSC) of the National Defense University was offensive to Muslims, according to a statement released on Monday by officials from a public-interest law firm in Michigan.
As a result, the Thomas More Law Center on Monday announced it is taking on LTC Dooley's case against the Defense Department and the Obama administration.
"General Dempsey characterized LTC Dooley’s course as "totally objectionable," and ordered all material offensive to Islam scrubbed from military professional education within the JFSC and elsewhere. In addition, LTC Dooley was fired from his instructor position and given an ordered negative Officer Evaluation Report (OER) -- the death-knell for a military career," according to Thomas More officials.
The actions against LTC Dooley follow a letter to the Department of Defense dated October 19, 2011 signed by 57 Muslim organizations demanding that all training materials offensive to Islam and Muslims be purged and the trainers disciplined.
According to a source, Joint Forces Staff College course included a slide-show that told students -- mostly battle-hardened officers -- that the U.S. is fighting a life and death battle with Islamists and that "we need to recognize that the U.S. and its allies are at war with Islam."
According to the American Forces Press Service's Jim Garamone, General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had ordered a thorough review of the course on Islam and military education in general after a Muslim soldier complained about the content of the course entitled "Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism" at the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Virginia.
JFSC educates military officers and other national security leaders in joint, multinational, and interagency operational-level planning and warfare, counterterrorism and other subjects.
"The study also recommends that the Staff College modify its processes for reviewing and approving course curricula while improving oversight of course electives," Garamone wrote.
The elective course relied on outside instructors who emphasized negative aspects of Islam. The review found that a lack of leadership on the course contributed to the problem, leading to an unbalanced approach to teaching the subject matter. "The course is suspended and will not be offered again until changes are in place, officials said and the military instructor has been relieved of instructor duties," the AFPS noted.
According to a Law Enforcement Examiner source, it's believed the complaining soldier, whose identity is being protected, may be a pawn of some of the Muslim groups such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) or Muslim Advocates, who are currently suing the New York City Police Department.
A Pentagon spokesman stated earlier this year that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was deeply upset with a course that promulgates the notion the United States is at war with Islam.
"This politically correct nonsense would be laughed at if we had a reality check now and then. On the one hand, the majority of terrorist attacks worldwide are perpetrated by radical Muslims who actually apply the teachings of the Koran. Anyone who studies the history of Islam, especially within the last two hundred years will discover what America faces is not new," said the counterterrorism source.
"The CAIR group is considered by some to be a front-group for radical Islamists -- several of whom are currently in prison or deported -- and frequently supports certain Democratic politicians who do their bidding. Rep. John Conyers of Michigan is a perfect example," the counterterrorism source alleges.
Counterterrorism experts condemned by CAIR include Walid Phares, Robert Spencer, Bill Gertz, Pam Geller and others who "refuse to sugarcoat the Islamic terrorism threat," said Mike Snopes, a former detective who served in the Special Investigations Unit in New York City.
"Nudges" and Abortion
The main pro-life argument, of course, is that abortion is murder, and murder is harmful to the victim. But on reflection, there is also a simple libertarian paternalist case against abortion.
Key starting point: Parents very rarely regret having children - even initially "unwanted" children. This is not mere status quo bias: Most childless adults eventually regret not having children. As I've said about parenthood before, "Buyer's remorse is rare; non-buyer's remorse is common." Implication: Most women who want to terminate their pregnancies would probably change their minds after their babies are born. Most won't go through the next eighteen years thinking, "I wish I'd gotten that abortion."
Armed with these facts, an old-fashioned hard paternalist would simply ban most abortions: "You'll thank us later." What about the libertarian paternalist? He'd want to achieve the same result - discouraging abortion - with subtler means. Instead of prohibiting abortion he'd want to nudge pregnant women into carrying their fetuses to term. Some candidate nudges:
1. Waiting periods: Abortions must be scheduled at least a week in advance. This gives women time to reconsider their decision, so they don't abort rashly.
2. An opt-out rule for counseling. The libertarian paternalist could schedule all women who want an abortion for a pre-procedure session with a psychologist - or maybe just volunteer mothers who previously considered abortion. Women who don't want counseling would have to explicitly refuse to participate.
3. Inconvenient locations: Abortions have to be performed in remote rural hospitals. Women who definitely want abortions will make the extra effort, but more ambivalent women will decide to keep their babies.
4. Deny government funding for abortion. If the government thinks that a procedure is generally ill-advised, the first step is to refrain from encouraging it. If people want to pay for it out of their own pocket, they're still free to do so.
As an actual libertarian, rather than a libertarian paternalist, I support only nudge #4. But it's hard to see why a staunch libertarian paternalist would object to any of them. (Before you appeal to the slippery slope, remember that Thaler has repeatedly minimized this danger). Despite all the nudges, a woman who really wants an abortion would remain free to get one. The upside, though, is that well-crafted nudges would sharply reduce the number of women who abort children they would have eventually come to love. It's seems like libertarian paternalists should jump right on board.
For more blog postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated) and Coral reef compendium. (Updated as news items come in). GUN WATCH is now mainly put together by Dean Weingarten.
List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or here (Pictorial) or here (Personal)