Slashdot Mirror
Smarter Teens Have Less Sex
Tech.Luver writes "Gene Expression reports,
"Tyler Cowen quotes from a new study testing the relationship between grades and delayed sexual activity.
Last December I passed a paper along to Razib showing that high-school age adolescents with higher IQs and extremely low IQs were less likely to have had first intercourse than those with average to below average intelligence. (i.e. for males with IQs under 70, 63.3% were still virgins, for those with IQs between 70-90 only 50.2% were virgin, 58.6% were virgins with IQs between 90-110, and 70.3% with IQs over 110 were virgins)
In fact, a more detailed study from 2000 is devoted strictly to this topic, and finds the same thing: Smart Teens Don't Have Sex (or Kiss Much Either). ""
Idiocracy, here we come!
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Uh huh. And later in life, they're called "Yes sir, right away, sir!"
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
Now I am conflicted. Half of my inner geek wants to laugh and take the joke, and the other wants to rail on you for creating causation from correlation. But either way, I'm posting on /.
There is plenty of time for sex and sex when you think you know so much when you actually know very little is much more likely to lead to complications.
But there's only so much time for sex with teenagers. Get it while you can guys.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Slashdot readers have such high IQs that they realize that sex leads to babies, contraceptives don't work 100%, having intimate contact with some random person is a good way to get disease, and that one should save themselves for a life-partner so that they're ready for the responsibilities that come with sex while simultaneously avoiding the issue of STDs. So they don't have sex as teens.
HAHAHAHA! Isn't that funny?
Anyone?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Actually no. In reality you get to management by who you know and social skills.
What you know and your IQ actually tend to hurt your chances.
I hate to burst the geek bubble but it's truth.
want proof? WOZ is a rich geek but never was upper management.
Gates was never a geek, he was a poser and the face man. (sorry gate's early code is horrible and first year quality) he had business sense and knew people as well as has social skills in a bizzare way.
Jobs = Face man he is the guy that makes you like him so much you will sell him your stuff at cost or buy his product by standing in a line outside for hours when there is no supply problems.
If you are a geek and high IQ I STRONGLY suggest taking etiquette classes, social interaction classes and do everything in your power to have the knowledge to fake being good at party socializing. You have to be the guy that everyone loves in the first 15 minutes of meeting them. Speak eloquently, be good at faking that you really are interested in how well her pedicure went and how that CEO of that company had a horrifying day because he had to way 30 minutes for road service to show up and fix his flat tire.
Crack the code of socalizing, get that one done and you will become upper management.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
There are a few of reasons I think this might be true:
1. Smarter teens believe that sex can be risky. Namely: Unwanted pregnancy, disease, emotional distress and not to mention social pressures from parents.
2. Smarter teens may have higher standards as they are able to distinguish better between "good mate" and "not so good mate."
2a. Finding a good mate may mean finding an intellectual equal.
3. A deep fulfilling intellectual and emotional relationship may be more important than and a prerequisite to simple sexual pleasure.
As an example case, I was a virgin until I was 26. Yes, if I'm honest it's true that I had utterly no clue how to understand or communicate with the opposite sex, but I'll also admit that sex quite simply isn't something that I've ever consistently had a strong interest in.
Although this is nothing whatsoever against the person who this happened with, even after losing my virginity, I can remember thinking of that experience, while reasonably enjoyable and positive, as not seeming to deserve anything like the degree of hype that most people associate with the act. Most of the people I've known seem to regard sex as being the pinnacle of human experience, and that is an attitude which I find deeply sad.
I know that a predictable response to this will probably be to speculate that I am in fact homosexual, but I do not believe that to be the case, and to be honest, that is something else about the customary attitude towards sex that I find deeply pathetic. Namely the idea that if a person doesn't have one preference, then they *must* by definition have another, because not being helplessly addicted to sex in either straight or gay form is supposedly completely impossible...in most people's minds, it just doesn't compute.
Some of us honestly view reproduction as being the domain of animals. Given that we have more than enough other human beings who are quite happy to devote their own lives to that activity, this means that those of us who have that attitude are also able to persue the expansion and enhancement of our minds, without fear as to the possible consequences to the human population.
If you're someone for whom sex is the most important element of your existence, I'd strongly advocate getting a life.
If by "first woman" you mean, the first woman to captivate me with her beauty, grace, and intelligence, then I suppose you could say that. Certainly, I was never attracted to the types of airheads that less honorable boys find so easy to "get in the sack". When a girl took several weeks before she finally got the punchline to "there are three types of people in the world", I did not find it charming or cute. I found it horrifying, and would rather have stayed a virgin for the rest of my life than try to build a relationship with someone like that.
If all you want in a mate is someone to have sex with, then that is your choice. I believe that God gave me a brain to think with and make intelligent decisions, not allow my loins to drive me. One of those decisions was staying true to who I am when finding a woman to spend my life with. And wouldn't you know it, the woman I chose was also the type to want more than just a physical relationship. She could have had any man she wanted, but she didn't. She chose me instead.
A relationship like that makes one remember how unique that other person is. And how important it is to make the time, put in the effort, and give the attention necessary to keep that relationship thriving over the years.
It's easy for me to give a flippant answer to a flippant statement, but I'd rather say something that will actually *help* people. And if there is one thing I can say, it's this: Relationships are about commitment. The best method of telling if someone is for you or not is not their looks or any "compatibility" tests. It's asking yourself if you're willing to devote the rest of your life to them and them to you. THAT is the true test of a relationship.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Nothing like avoiding the good things in life because you're afraid of the minuscule possibility that something might happen.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
If only laws prevented that! Surely eugenics is the answer, or perhaps some other form of law to keep the higher-quality people from those lower-quality ones.
They're going to spend the rest of their miserable, worthless lives on welfare, no doubt failing to raise their bastard kids properly.
Who are you to say that their lives will be miserable and worthless? To those living them, perhaps their lives are rich and provide emotional sustenance, or seem worthy and interesting. It is dangerous to try and judge someone from the outside, and if you hold the rest of humanity in such low regard, perhaps you should think about what is happening in your own life that you castigate others as you do.
Robertson Davies sometimes writes about such people who are left behind by time or technology or society, and writes about them with great sympathy. In The Cunning Man a doctor treats patients with more than just science, and in Conversation with Robertson Davies this exchange occurs:
I will lament that my penis has by then received so little use.
Most women, I suspect, would choose a carefree bad boy over an angry, uptight Republican with a chip on his shoulder; Dan Savage makes a similar point in some of his columns. If you think ignorant fools can get laid so easily but someone as perspicacious as you wants to and can't, who is smart?