We know of two factors in the U.S. within the past seventy years where we can see natural selection at work. Mothers are getting younger (they are having their first child at younger age when compared with seventy years ago) and chubbier. The fact that they are having kids at younger age probably also means that they start having sex at younger age. What this means is that mothers who are having kids at younger age and are chubbier are the most fertile. Not that I am really in the mood the bring up the race thing again, but these results are probably due to the effect of the Mexican immigration. Mexican American women are more fertile (and have kids at younger age and are chubbier) than the mostly white U.S. from seventy years ago. Not a good thing or a bad thing. Just a thing.
I heard what I said here on NPR’s Science Friday podcast a few years back. I tried to look for it but can’t find it now. And you have to be very careful with these types of studies. One can always adjust the findings in such way to fit whatever they are after. Until I see more detailed statistics I have no idea what this means. How do we know that mothers who are twenty-one don’t have more babies now than women who are thirty-three when compared with twenty years ago. Plus, I was talking about seventy years, not twenty. I have designed enough financial publications to understand the tricks of selecting either longer or shorter periods of time to make the results appear more impactful.
I’ll try to search for something more accurate when I get a chance.
Why are fertility rates somewhat higher in the United States than in other developed nations? Some researchers contend that fertility rates are low in some other developed countries-Italy and Japan, for example-in part because of lack of support for mothers who also hold paid employment.
Women with curvy figures are likely to be brighter than waif-like counterparts and may well produce more intelligent offspring, a US study suggests.
Researchers studied 16,000 women and girls and found the more voluptuous performed better on cognitive tests - as did their children.
The bigger the difference between a woman’s waist and hips the better.
It always seems strange to me when an article begins with “Researchers found…” and ends with “But experts disagree…” What the hell were the researchers if not some sort of experts? It just shows that a study should rarely (never?) be taken as conclusive.
It always seems strange to me when an article begins with “Researchers found…” and ends with “But experts disagree…” What the hell were the researchers if not some sort of experts? It just shows that a study should rarely (never?) be taken as conclusive.
I guess I don’t find that so strange. What it means is that there is one study showing X, but there are other studies showing or implying ~X. (Or the former study is not particularly conclusive). Means more work is to be done.
(I would read the sentence not as “All experts disagree with this study”, but as “Experts disagree amongst themselves.”)
NB: that’s the case with virtually all of these kinds of cross-correlational studies. They are very often fringy, getting more airplay because of the controversy than the study quality.
It always seems strange to me when an article begins with “Researchers found…” and ends with “But experts disagree…” What the hell were the researchers if not some sort of experts? It just shows that a study should rarely (never?) be taken as conclusive.
I guess I don’t find that so strange. What it means is that there is one study showing X, but there are other studies showing or implying ~X. (Or the former study is not particularly conclusive). Means more work is to be done.
(I would read the sentence not as “All experts disagree with this study”, but as “Experts disagree amongst themselves.”)
NB: that’s the case with virtually all of these kinds of cross-correlational studies. They are very often fringy, getting more airplay because of the controversy than the study quality.
I agree. Perhaps I should say that I find articles that begin with “Researchers found…” and end with “But experts disagree…” as being honest. It’s always good to realize that referring to a study does not make one’s point a foregone conclusion.
“And much as we logically like the idea that men are interested in the waist to hip ratio, it actually features relatively low down the list of feature males look for in a potential partner.”
I find this very hard to believe. I remember reading somewhere that they tried to look for the most talked about part of female anatomy in literature and it has always been the hips. I imagine the reason for that would be that it is easier for women with wider hips to give birth. And the wider the hips, the better chance for a baby with larger brain to make it. Maybe that’s why there is a correlation between intelligence and hip/waist ratio.
“And much as we logically like the idea that men are interested in the waist to hip ratio, it actually features relatively low down the list of feature males look for in a potential partner.”
I find this very hard to believe. I remember reading somewhere that they tried to look for the most talked about part of female anatomy in literature and it has always been the hips. I imagine the reason for that would be that it is easier for women with wider hips to give birth. And the wider the hips, the better chance for a baby with larger brain to make it. Maybe that’s why there is a correlation between intelligence and hip/waist ratio.
THIS STUDY shows body mass index to be important, but not waist to hip ratio.
I heard what I said here on NPR’s Science Friday podcast a few years back. I tried to look for it but can’t find it now. And you have to be very careful with these types of studies. One can always adjust the findings in such way to fit whatever they are after. Until I see more detailed statistics I have no idea what this means. How do we know that mothers who are twenty-one don’t have more babies now than women who are thirty-three when compared with twenty years ago. Plus, I was talking about seventy years, not twenty. I have designed enough financial publications to understand the tricks of selecting either longer or shorter periods of time to make the results appear more impactful.
I’ll try to search for something more accurate when I get a chance.
Maybe you’re remembering it wrong if it was on NPR several years ago. There have been quite a few studies showing that American women are having their first child at older ages compared to past generations.
I would’t disagree with you here. But women who wait until their thirties to have kids, have generally fewer of them. Reproduction accounts only for a part of the evolutionary success. The more important part is how much (!) one reproduces.
I would’t disagree with you here. But women who wait until their thirties to have kids, have generally fewer of them. Reproduction accounts only for a part of the evolutionary success. The more important part is how much (!) one reproduces.
Yes, which is why I say ‘Idiocracy’ was a documentary and not SF.
I would not disagree that the world is a messy place right now. I would not disagree that we as men and women are part of the reason why. But could we not make an argument here that this too is part of a natural selection process of sorts? We see it in nature but sometimes seem to exclude ourselves from that aspect of it.
Or perhaps I’m way off ...
According to Pew, the average age of new mothers is rising. 
