Multiply and Replenish the Earth

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

My opinion is based upon nothing but my anecdotal experiences.

Finally, I am not convinced that LDS doctrine has been for large families, I think LDS culture has been. I do think that the Brethren speak out against reasons they feel are selfish that causes LDS people to not have children but it is not a function of not having X number of kids.

This is reasonable. Most advice given is given in light of cultural expectations. As life shows, they give folk wisdom and observation.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BYUruss

Wow. At this point the husband would have to literally crawl into what is now assuredly a cavern to enjoy intercourse.

Pardon me for stating the obvious, but it appears he's not having any difficulty with that whatsoever.

[SoonerCoug]

I haven't dug up research on contributions of family size to juvenile delinquency. Obviously, there are plenty of geniuses from large families, and plenty of dummies from small families. But family size seems to have significant effects on intelligence. (Keep in mind that we're talking about likelihood. We're not saying that kids from big families are guaranteed to have lower IQ scores.)

Zajonc summarized data in a 1976 Science review article: IQ scores decline with increasing family size, but the rate of decline decreases with successive birth orders. There is discontinuity for the only child, who scores below a level that would be expected had intelligence declined monotonically with increasing family size. Twins have comparatively low scores.

Blake (in a 1989 Science review article) summarized data suggesting that the most important factor for educational attainment was the father's schooling. But number of children was a close second: the fewer children, the more education.

Anyway, I think delinquency is a more important indicator than IQ, and I haven't dug up data on that yet. Emotional intelligence is a much better predictor of "success" than IQ, and I'd expect that a large family would greatly increase emotional intelligence (as long as the family isn't TOO large). I'm still looking for data on that.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I haven't dug up research on contributions of family size to juvenile delinquency. Obviously, there are plenty of geniuses from large families, and plenty of dummies from small families. But family size seems to have significant effects on intelligence. (Keep in mind that we're talking about likelihood. We're not saying that kids from big families are guaranteed to have lower IQ scores.)

Zajonc summarized data in a 1976 Science review article: IQ scores decline with increasing family size, but the rate of decline decreases with successive birth orders. There is discontinuity for the only child, who scores below a level that would be expected had intelligence declined monotonically with increasing family size. Twins have comparatively low scores.

Blake (in a 1989 Science review article) summarized data suggesting that the most important factor for educational attainment was the father's schooling. But number of children was a close second: the fewer children, the more education.

Anyway, I think delinquency is a more important indicator than IQ, and I haven't dug up data on that yet. Emotional intelligence is a much better predictor of "success" than IQ, and I'd expect that a large family would greatly increase emotional intelligence (as long as the family isn't TOO large). I'm still looking for data on that.

I'm skeptical about what the cause of that correlation might be. For example, poorer (read here less intelligent for the most part) people use less birth control for whatever reason. They have bigger families. Their kids are also lower IQ. The real cause could be that poor people don't use birth control.

Large family size flat out cannot be the cause of low IQ.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I'm skeptical about what the cause of that correlation might be. For example, poorer (read here less intelligent for the most part) people use less birth control for whatever reason. They have bigger families. Their kids are also lower IQ. The real cause could be that poor people don't use birth control.

Large family size flat out cannot be the cause of low IQ.

I agree with your point, and I would view a superficially examined correlation with great skepticism.

They could easily control for socioeconomic factors and education of the parents, and I'd expect that good scientists would have done this. Their conclusions would be totally invalid if they didn't take socioeconomic factors into account. (Any reviewer ought to toss this work in the trash bin if they don't take this into account.)

But why do you say that large family size could not increase the likelihood of a lower IQ? Surely there are a lot of variables involved, but it's very hard to prove that large family size does not affect IQ, especially when the data suggest that it does contribute.

Even factors like uterine environment make a difference, and there's little doubt about that.

There is a 33% percent greater chance of being gay for every older male sibling that a person has, and this is probably due to uterine environment.

Since 1 in 9 male homosexuals owes his sexual orientation entirely to fraternal birth order, I wouldn't think it'd be unreasonable to hypothesize that family size could influence something like IQ. Twins (on average) have a lower IQ than would be expected. What's the explanation here? Poor people are more likely to have twins? The real explanation is probably uterine environment, but it could also be some other environmental factor.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by Adam

What???

I have cousins, the Day family formerly of Grandview Hill who had 6 boys in a row: Boy #1 (drown young before I was born, I don't remember his name), Michael, Steven, Brian, Douglas, Jonathon.

So what are the odds that Jonathon is gay? If the national average for being gay is 5% then boy number 6 would have a 20% chance of being gay (5% + 33% 5 times)?

I am the youngest of 5 boys and I ain't not toe tapper!

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

I am the youngest of 5 boys and I ain't not toe tapper!

Same here. Phew!

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Same here. Phew!

Weren't you the one checking out the equipment after we looked at the masculinity of your manuscripts?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Weren't you the one checking out the equipment after we looked at the masculinity of your manuscripts?

I am secure enough in my masculinity that I can joke about it. You were the one who kept posting sample after sample proving your maleness.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I am secure enough in my masculinity that I can joke about it. You were the one who kept posting sample after sample proving your maleness.

I actually find it funny that the proponents believe the matrix is of any value. The matrix uses the frequency of certain prepositions. For example, "with" is a female preposition. Huh? Says who?

This is why "wordprint" is so dubious.