The free full text manuscript elaborates on the measures.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yes, but the top ~5% and the bottom ~3% groups both have higher rates of childlessness. Because the data is categorized, these figures are rather crude, based on the sizes of the categories.pic.twitter.com/PJXxz3UGrk
-
The higher rates at the bottom did not reach significance. The author believes it would have if the number of participants in that group were higher.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Very high intelligence might make a person socially weird?
-
Somewhat. The paper contends that high intelligence correlates to openness to new experiences or the unconventional, with deliberate childlessness being somewhat historically unusual. I would challenge that as greater fertility would be equally unconventional (1/n)
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Exeptional minds that never reproduced/married *Voltair *Friedrich Nietzsche *Nikola Tesla *Plato * Sir Isaac Newton *da Vinci *Alan Turing *Antonio Vivaldi Etc
-
Nature wouldn't create something that would out-smart. That's why we don't see too many geniuses walking around in our daily interactions. "As with nature, the more a living thing deviates from the norm, the more a survival disadvantage it becomes"
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
The answer to the Fermi Paradox.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
High intelligence is rare, making it harder to find a peer mate. I remember from somewhere I can't find now that relationships are difficult if there is a difference of more than 15 IQ points.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Using the word "risk" instead of "probability" makes this a normative writing.
-
Maybe the authors saw "Idiocracy"
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.