Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion The Case for Having More Kids (NYT)

My impression from Mr. Caplan's ideas (and I agree on this point) is that putting lots of time and resources into someone's childhood is not necessarily always for the good of the kid or the parent.

Children need time and space, just like adults. I think that current trends in raising children tend toward more hovering and micromanaging and less space and free time. Kids need time away from authority figures and scheduled activities so that they can just be themselves and make their own mistakes.

As the world population grows and as technology becomes more important and more complex, we'll need more smart people, not less. The number of tasks that benefit from being done by a smart person will grow, not decline. If there are fewer smart people available to do them, quality will suffer. This is just a fact, not a political statement or some kind of judgment.

I knew that and was basically agreeing with the what's so bad about smart people having more kids and increasing the number of smart people out there.

Just was adding that my values are against intentionally doing this, but my hopes are that this is the way we are going. Had nothing to do with what you said, just wanted to include my full view on this. I am willing to admit that sometimes the nicer thoughts are not always the ones leading to the best end result.

For instance, if I had 4 children and a cougar was about to attack, I would probably put myself in front of the cougar, get eaten and all four children would probably be lost. Yet a more selfish person would possibly focus on protecting themselves while trying to fend off the cougar. In this case maybe one child would be lost and the more selfish adult would still be around to protect the remaining 3 children. I would still probably make the first choice even though my reasoning tells me it might have a higher probability of a worse end result.

If the fraternal male birth order effect I have read about is true, then we are heading for a more female typical brain oriented male population due to reduced number of children per mother. I don't know about anyone else, but I think this might be a good thing.

Oh, I agree with that, as well. I definitely think that having fewer children just so that you can more effectively micromanage them is... um... well, it's unhealthy.

I'm not so sure that viewing population growth as either inevitable or as desirable is a good thing, however. But I realize that this is where a rational consideration of things like fresh water supplies, energy needs etc. runs smack into both idealological considerations of personal autonomy and also of faith. In a pragmatic sense, it may be too hot a political potato to handle given the inevitable comparisons to eugenics and fascism... but that's not precisely the same thing as calling efforts to stabilize population growth inevitably futile. Just that there has been (remarkably?) little widespread concern about the world's "carrying capacity"-- yet.

Well, to me, advocating that more smart people produce more children than less smart people is the same as advocating that less smart people should not produce as many children as more smart people. I don't see a difference.

And I don't see unusually-high intelligence as being the sort of attribute that is uniformly good, like compassion or health. Perhaps as our need for intelligence grows the average intelligence of our population will grow. That seems to have happened, and I believe that it will continue to happen if it continues to be beneficial.

But I don't see an under-supply of intelligent people in the world that ought to be corrected. I don't see why people who are perfectly satisfied with their lives and jobs and circumstances would benefit from an increased IQ. I don't want my IQ to be higher, or lower, and I don't want that for other people either (though of course I would not wish mental disability on anyone).

I guess what I'm saying is that intelligence is like height. I see no reason why being tall is better than being short (unless one wants to be a basketball player) or why being short is better than being tall (unless one wants to be comfortable in airplanes). I see no reason why people who are short or tall should reproduce more or less than each other.

And yes, in a world as overpopulated as ours, I see an argument for an increase in one group of people as an insidious, rather than overt, form of eugenics. To me it is no less offensive.

I thought Caplan made a good point about second hand stress but disagree with his recommendation for parents to turn to electronic babysitters like television and video games. The negative effects of too much T.V. and video games are well documented and most children already far exceed the American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines.

T.V. adds more stress to our lives since advertisers spend billions of dollars targeting kids to nag their parents to buy them stuff. Plus an NIH study showed television viewing was negatively related to creative play, especially among children younger than 5.

I totally agree with this. Thanks for typing it up! :-)

You've distorted what I wrote. That bothers me. This subject makes some people uncomfortable, which is understandable and okay, and it isn't helped when people throw around unfounded accusations and try to inflame things.


Again, I didn't say "unusually high." I said "smart," which is probably around the +1 SD mark more or less, depending, etc.



This is totally off-topic from what I said. Please don't throw in random segues to inflame a discussion. I never said anything disparaging (or otherwise) about people who who are happy with their lives or their IQs.


You've made my argument for me. I said that our world is being increasingly driven by technology. Technology workers have to be smart, and there's no way around that. They need other characteristics too (e.g. integrity, drive), but this doesn't detract from the fact that they need to be smart.


Invoking Godwin's law never helps. Though a corollary to that law says that I've won the debate because of your accusation.

I haven't accused you of anything, and I'm not trying to be inflammatory. I'm trying to explain how your statement sounded to me and if I misinterpreted you I'd love to hear a clarification.


Okay. Personally, I don't use the word "smart" in that way, so I used words that I am more comfortable with. The cutoff point doesn't matter at all IMO.


No, you didn't. But when you say that smart people should have more kids, it implies to me that you are saying that being smarter is a good thing that we should strive for. All I'm saying is that that may be true for some of us, but not for all of us. Again, if that's not what you meant, please clarify.


Eh, I'm not sure about that. I think we could make the argument that the opposite is true, actually. And again, if it is true that we need smarter people, I think that people will get smarter...without making extra babies because of extra IQ points.


Um. I'm pretty sure that you brought up eugenics first. Regardless, I certainly didn't accuse you of being a Nazi (nor are Nazis the only people who have supported eugenics). My intention is not to debate, but to make my opinion clear. If you have your own opinion, and obviously you do, that's fine by me.

I don't think there is an undersupply of intelligent people either. However, I don't think the people in charge have any idea of who the appropriate people are for the work they are choosen for. I also don't think intelligence has anything to do with IQ tests.

It is not just a matter of whether I am satisfied with my life, but what about everyone else. I don't think IQ has anything to do with satisfaction in life. All I want is for the world to run a little smarter and make life much more satisfying for as many people as it can.

I don't know what to say about not wishing mental disability on anyone. The same could probably be said for giftedness. I haven't found the people I know with mental disabilities to complain anymore than anyone else I know.