Correlations as high as 0.6??? Sounds extremely unlikely to me.
Natural Selection in Modern Humans (UK; N ≈ 500,000) http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/12/12/1707227114.abstract …
Traits currently favoured by selection: Younger age at first birth in 
; higher BMI in 
Traits being selected against: Intelligence; educational achievement (!)
Figure: https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21732803-it-does-however-no-longer-seem-favour-braininess-data-half-million …pic.twitter.com/YexhkkqyUF
-
-
-
When I see correlations this high between indices such as these, I immediately think of inflation through multiple testing, or collinearity.
@lakens@david_colquhoun thoughts? -
Not sure it should be that surprising. The earlier you start having kids, the more kids you can have, no?
-
Real question. I really have no clue about this beyond high school knowledge about evolutionary biology and my gut feelings.
-
It's the other correlations as well. Around 0.25-0.3 just seems way too high an association for those variables.
-
Ha. I am with you there and that makes me rethink my gut feeling for the other correlation.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Actually, as per the graph, all metrics that relate to larger body size are selected in *both* males and females - it's just that the selection is stronger it in males.
-
Is that higher BMI in muscle, or fat? Also, it's damn hard to find a guy who's not fat, so is that choice, or just tough luck?
-
BMI doesn't care if you're jacked or fat, so it's both. It's not exactly the smartest measure, honestly.
-
Yup. The chart mitigates this problem by also including body fat percentage and hip to waist ratio.
-
Low, or high, body fat percentage? High in women and low in men, is simultaneously assumed, or? What hip to waist ratio? Men with an hourglass figure are selected? Ok, I could click on the article, but it's the Economist
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If I read it correctly younger age at first birth goes against reproductive success. It's in negative. The positive things for women are Waist-hip ratio and Age at first period. But not age at first birth.
-
Nope. You’re reading it wrong. The older a woman is at birth of her first child, the fewer children she will have.
-
Got it. Thanks.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
BMI is not inherited genetically, and the demographic transition is still ongoing.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks to the modern day eugenics brought to us by the welfare state
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
On a related note, happy 10-year anniversary to my favorite film!pic.twitter.com/Nmm1pyTqXL
- 1 more reply
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.