Children of older fathers have lower IQs

With an average difference of only <i>3</i> IQ points that this study found, these children appear to be missing out on little with regards to intelligence.<p>I would be more inclined to believe any differences in intelligence, if there really are any, are due to the environment in which the child was raised, rather than genetic advantages and disadvantages. In today's world, I would guess that children born to 50 year old men are being born into a family where the wife is not the father's first wife, and the father is not as likely to be as dedicated a father as the younger fathers plan to be. This is a sweeping generalization, but I would wager that for those 50 year-olds who are remarried (once, twice, or more), by the fact that they did not care to keep the family intact the first time (excluding cases where the wife died), these men and their current wives would be less likely to provide a nurturing environment compared to a young father.<p>A sweeping generalization, but my gut feeling, based on the likely fact that many of those 50 year old fathers are remarried once, twice, or more, indicating to me that they are not as good a father as the SOME of the 20 year olds will be.<p>Also, statistics on society's accepted geniuses do not seem to show a correlation between fathers' ages and the intelligence of the offspring.<p>Here is a list I have compiled. IQ scores may be disputed, but the intelligence of these people generally are not.<p>Genius IQ Father's age<p>------ -- ------------<p>Einstein about 160 31<p>Galileo 185 44<p>==========================================<p>Bobby Fischer 187 Likely father, Paul nemenyi: 48<p><pre><code> Birth certificate father, Hans-Gerhardt Fischer: 35 http://www.nndb.com/people/455/000024383/ </code></pre> ==========================================<p>Madame de Stael 180 33<p>Ludwig Wittgenstein 190 42<p>Blaise Pascal 195 35<p>Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz 205 49<p>John Stuart Mill 200 33<p>Emanuel Swedenborg 205 34<p>Johann Wolfgang von Goethe 210 39<p>As you can see, one of the highest IQ's, Leibniz's, had a father who as 49 years old.<p>Einstein's, considered the lowest at 160, had a father of 31, the youngest in this list.<p>So this is opposite the study's findings. However, I don't really see a correlation overall.<p>With the study's difference of only 3 IQ points on average, I am inclined to believe that age makes no difference in the intelligence of their offspring, especially in those families that provide a nurturing environment, regardless of the parents' ages.

I wonder if the study controlled for the selection bias inherent in the decisions of males of various ages to reproduce and in their preferences for mates. Presumably, 50 year-old men are not procreating with women their age. Do older men choose younger, but dumber women to mate with? Do dumber men end up having children later in life? Are 50 year-old men worse parents?

As far as I know, a three point IQ difference doesn't have any practical effect. It may be statistically significant, but it's hardly a huge advantage to score three points higher than someone else.

I have always wondered - when reading articles like this - whether it would just be better to freeze one's sperm at age 20 and then save it for when you want to have a child. In fact, it might even be better to save sperm from age 14 or so to reduce even further the chance of generic mutation.<p>I don't know if this is easy or even possible to do (or whether using frozen sperm brings its own complications), but it's worth researching further.

Can we draft a law preventing journalists from trying to interpret statistics?

<i>The same study found that children's IQ was marginally higher if they were born to older mothers, a finding scientists have put down to those women spending more time caring for and nurturing their infants.</i><p>Maybe younger fathers are more nurturing.

It looks like several journalists need to read the new book Intelligence and How to Get It by Richard E. Nisbett,<p><a href="http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/winter09/006505.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/winter09/006505.htm</a><p>which I am reading just now. Nisbett reviews the best recent literature on IQ testing and what it means, and punches holes in the fallacious reasoning used by many advocates of a strong hereditarian view of influence on IQ.<p>A really good book for background reading on IQ testing and how it works is IQ and Human Intelligence by N. J. Mackintosh,<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/IQ-Human-Intelligence-N-Mackintosh/dp/019852367X/" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/IQ-Human-Intelligence-N-Mackintosh/dp/...</a><p>which includes very clear explanations of how IQ tests have developed historically, how they are currently constructed and validated, and what we still don't know about human rationality despite a century of IQ testing.

This is purely anecdotal but my grandfather was 60 when my dad was born. By all accounts my dad was a highly intelligent man who achieved well in the Navy despite not finishing high school (needed money).

You are a product of your environment. --Clement Stone