Thread: "smarter people has less children" Misguided?

They say smarter people has less children.

This puzzles me because i dont see them as having less children because they are smarter.

They are smarter because they have less children and thus have more time for themselves to develop instead of having to care for a child.

Lets take the good old "Identical twin" example.

We have 2 identical twins that both scored 120 on an IQ test.

Brother A) Gets a child at the age of 16, and another at the age of 23.

Brother B) Has no children.

Time passess and: Id put my bet that brother B is just as smart or smarter while brother A is falling behind. Because brother A has children and NOT because he in any way "dumber" than his brother. Having children as in: More responsibility and less time for himself.

Do you guys have any other opinions on reasons why pure statistics on this matter would be flawed? Personally i find the whole "Smarter people have less children" as a useless statistic.

Useless because smart people tend to have smarter children. So having less children wouldnt matter much when it comes to "value" because they have a higher quality so to speak.

Keep in mind that alcohol might be directly related to how smart someone ends up being. The father with more kids tends to drink more, and sometimes the mom does as well

I say we all stop having kids, let the worlds population cut down by at least one half of what it is and then hand select couples to have one kid. We could then provide any assistance needed to those couples to ensure their children grow up to be very intelligent. We will of course still end up with the few rejects, they have a place in the world as well, just not in the breeding pool.

Hmm, sounds kind of like every other crazy dictator doesn't it

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

Hmm, sounds kind of like every other crazy dictator doesn't it

Guess i should keep out of politics

Im mainly an "enemy" of biologists that claim success is in NUMBERS (Ability to reproduce) and not quality though. As survival isnt a positive thing if it isnt in an existence that is worthwhile. Adaption is what makes species survive, and numbers will only weaken the quality of each member. Which is why i find the statistics that "Smarter people has less children" meaningless because its like saying "Mosquitos have more numbers than beetles and therefore mosquitos are the most successfull of the two"

A perfect example would be if an elitist society of super smart people created advanced technology to kill of the rest of mankind. This would make them the most successful regardless of numbers.