|
|
| IQ and Sex (764493) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Wed Apr 13 12:26:28 2011 Not the sexes, there the jimmy is just that men have a 5 point IQ advantage and higher standard deviation; Larry Summers gets the last laugh! But here I'm talking about sex.So what's up? If you're really bright, probably not friend down below. It turns out that (past an IQ of ~90) there is a strong negative correlation between IQ and sex drive. In fact, it's so pronounced, that whereas in the general population, 95% of men and 70% of women say they masturbate, only 68% of men and 20% of women at MIT say they do! Gene Expression: Intercourse and Intelligence Note that this totally does NOT describe me however, and I suspect that it doesn't describe several of you guys as well. It's established that men have higher sex drives than women, on average. But even still, higher IQ males do still have lower sex drives than their lower IQ counterparts, on average. Yet, this still leaves a lot of smart men looking for sex, and as it seems, men with a higher IQ's seem to have a harder time finding willing females, because men with IQ's ≥120 are more likely to solicit prostitutes. There is a negative correlation between IQ and (jock) masculinity, and as Peter Rosa will tell us, less masculine males are less attractive to women. Although these data are not broken down by race here, I would suspect that, even when matched for IQ, sex drive goes down as you go black -> brown -> white -> E. Asian. As we discussed the current dysgenic trend in the population, that successful (and higher IQ) individuals reproduce less, particularly among whites and East Asians, this is in large part why. Successful people (who have much higher IQ's than the general population) breed less in good part because they are as a whole genuinely less interested in sex. I would posit that excessive interest in sex interferes with getting ahead in today's world, as it leaves less time to devote to studies and the demands of career—not to mention actually having children. How did this evolve? For one, increased IQ seems to be associated with decreased sensitivity to testosterone. Further, consistent with J. Philippe Rushton's r/K selection theory, higher intelligence greatly increased survivability of offspring, and hence favored the need to have fewer of them (to increase investment in each one)—a problem that was especially acute in a world without birth control. As well, lower sex drive probably favors couple stability, as there is less desire to stray. Economist Bryan Caplan wrote two articles in the Wall Street Journal, the lastest talking about his newly released book based on Judith Rich Harris's revelation that parenting does not affect children's development, with the goal of encouraging people (presumably, as readers of the WSJ, smarter people) to have more children by freeing them of the burden of worrying about how their treatment of their children will affect how their children turn out (you'll see my take on the matter under "JYH" in the comments to his recent article). It is indeed true that smarter people, particularly whites and E. Asians, are more likely to see their children as investments—as K-selection theory would predict—and hence be more obsessed about how they are rearing them, so getting them to disassociate child-rearing practices from having children might encourage successful people to have more of them, as perhaps raising smart successful children won't seem as much of a chore. However, the general lower sex drive of high-IQ individuals presents a permanent road block to any hope of encouraging smarter people to breed more. The desire is just not there. Oddly, even if incentives were provided to encourage smart people to have more children, the ones that would likely bite first would be the ones with higher sex drives, and I predict this would lead to both the average intelligence and sex drive of the population going up, particular of the upper IQ end (who badly need it, it seems). |
|
|
|