Marriage May Tame Genius 941
theodp writes "Here's one to share with the wife and kids. Using a database of the biographies of 280 great scientists, a psychologist at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand has concluded that creative genius is turned off almost like a tap if a man gets married and has children, regardless of age."
Output, not potential (Score:5, Insightful)
Most recognized genuses have the luxury of working with little to no distraction. When you have a wife, financial trouble, and screaming children, it's rather hard to plumb the secrets of the universe.
This is no surprise to anyone.
People change their priorities. (Score:5, Insightful)
I belive the biggest change comes when your children are born, after which your whole life changes. You no longer live for yourslef but ever decision is based on the children. They are the most important thing in your life, work is nothing....!
A proud father.
Re:Output, not potential (Score:0, Insightful)
Suprise, Suprise... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Output, not potential (Score:5, Insightful)
But most geniuses make bad relationship decisions. In fact, most of the other geniuses (especially computer programmers and physicists for some reason) that I know are morons in this area. So how about this.
Marriage itself doesn't necessarily cause brain impotence, bad choices in interpersonal relationships do.
So kids, the moral of the story...
Don't think with your dick.
So there.
what about women? (Score:3, Insightful)
Are we supposed to guess women aren't affected by this? Maybe the study isnt sexist but the article covering it sure is...
Fruedian article. (Score:5, Insightful)
Dr Kanazawa suggests "a single psychological mechanism" is responsible for this: the competitive edge among young men to fight for glory and gain the attention of women.
Isn't this what Freud said nearly 100 years ago?
Hi (Score:1, Insightful)
They're more interested in publicity than science. I fail to see anything credible in this research, other than some guy trying to 'shock conventions' with his 'radical theories'.
Re:D'OH! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Output, not potential (Score:3, Insightful)
Most recognized genuses have the luxury of working with little to no distraction. When you have a wife, financial trouble, and screaming children, it's rather hard to plumb the secrets of the universe.
That's not the reason. We work hard because we're competitive, and we're most competitive when we're looking for a mate whether or not it's intentional. When they get a wife (or a husband) they just lost a major motivation which is showing off to the opposite sex by making everyone around you look like an intellectual midget. Plus it reassigns your priorities so that work is now just something to do and your wife and children becmoe your true passion.
That being said could a great scientist continue to make great contributions after they're married by keeping the need to impress the opposite sex by fooling around?
"I see your latest paper got quite a good reception...
Are you having an affair!!!"
Boy, is this ever true (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not just the coding, either. Want to go have a couple of beers after work? Sorry, wife won't let me. Water-skiing at the lake this weekend? No, kid's got a recital. Travel to Australia to install a system down there? I wish I could, but my wife's sick. Bah. I fully intend on getting married at some point in time, but for now I intend on remaining a valuable contributor to the company and actually do something worthwhile with my work output. Besides, there's nothing wrong with wild monkey sex with chicks from the bar, and they don't care a bit if you have some beers after work
Catchy headline, bad statistics (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems quite a stretch to go from 25% of married scientists to the claim "the great minds who married virtually kissed goodbye to making any further glorious additions to their CV." Last I looked, 75% was a pretty sizable majority. And what was the percentage of unmarried men of similar ages who had also made their last significant contribution?
Of course, saying "A fair amount of married scientists" doesn't make for a good headline ...
Yeah, it's either bad science logic or... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Marriage tames Genius" is so much better a headline than "Genius burns out, then gets married."
Remember, causality is very hard to prove either way.
Re:Output, not potential (Score:3, Insightful)
Just a little sexist (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:One plus (Score:5, Insightful)
Why, oh why, does everything have to come back to testosterone for these people? It is, quite possibly, the most overrated hormone of all time. I believe the results are correct, but this causality argument is total bullstuff.
This has nothing to do with man-juice, and everything to do with the allocation of time. You simply cannot build a successful happy relationship with a woman if you are not willing to put her first in your schedule.
As a single, I had approximately 8 more hours per day of play time when nothing was pre-scheduled for me. THAT'S where my 'research' time went -- yardwork, making dinner together, visiting the in-laws, going to movies. You do the math.
I wouldn't trade it for the world, though - well worth the investment.
I could use more of BOTH! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I'm so tired from the commute and the 9-to-5 and I have to pay attention to all this other shit (cats, girlfriend, email, bills, car care, lawn, landlord) I don't have any room left for being creative.
Re:People change their priorities. (Score:3, Insightful)
Gotta say, though, it is a blast. I don't know how many times I've gotten frustrated and tired, only to have one of the kids flash those "you're powerless, I'm too cute" smiles and you realize that what makes you upset is hanging on to old, obsolete priorities.
Creative Output (Score:2, Insightful)
Apparently Dr Kanazawa has never had to remove several Hot Wheels cars from the innards of a toilet full of crap. Yeah, I might be a great computer guy, but it takes a pretty creative mind to stay ahead of the creative minds of my children. We used to lock certain doors in our house to keep our kids out of those rooms. It turns out that I inadvertently trained them all in the art of lock picking. If you want to look into the human mind, raise some kids and put a few obstacles in front of them and watch their minds work. It's truly fascinating.
I am the proud parent of 5 kids. Hey, if the intelligent part of the population doesn't reproduce, then it's all left up to the dummies. Have you ever SEEN the people on the Jerry Springer show. The world would be better off if our scientists would get off their butts and start raising kids with the same love of science that they have rather than try to eek out a few more discoveries after their 30s.
Losing the competitive edge or getting a life? (Score:5, Insightful)
As a young female scientist, I object to the slightest intimation of the idea that the only way good science gets done is because young (presumably male) scientists are trying to compete for female attention. How many young male scientists out their have managed to impress girls with their thesis results anyway?
On the other hand, I find it entirely plausible that scientists of both genders who get married and have families often find their priorities rearranged. Discovering that having a family means a less obsessive attention to your career shouldn't be a surprise to anyone with a balanced view of life.
Luckily for many male scientists at institutions such as the one where I'm a student (MIT), they DO have wives who often stay home at least part time, enabling them to maintain something close to the obsessively competitive hours they put in before marriage and kids. That applies for all but one of the male professors in my department. For female scientists, it's much rarer to have a house-husband. The two female professors in my department only manage because their salary combined with their husband's allows them to hire people to help with household chores and raising the kids. Any female scientist who can't come up with a substitute for a housewife finds it very, very difficult to compete.
Re:Output, not potential (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Output, not potential (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Output, not potential (Score:3, Insightful)
The contributor's interpretation is specious. (Score:1, Insightful)
The study does not detail cause and effect. Maybe the geniuses who married and started a family chose to do so because they no longer wanted to be engaged in their former pursuits as opposed to marriage and kids killing their output.
My common sense and observation lead me to believe the above interpretation is just plain silly. Marriage, relationships, and family take time and commitment to work. If you can juggle this within a schedule and maintain a commitment to your interests then your creative output will not be significantly impacted.
My father is among the top computer scientists in networking. He is responsible for some of the greatest advancements you are currently using. He has helped found numerous successful companies. Before he met my mother he was brilliant but had no output to prove it. To this day he continues to be extremely productive and his work continues to revolutionize the industry. Take this anecdote as you will.
Bullshit statistics and studies abound everywhere as do misinterpretations of real data. I use my experience and thought for guidance.
An explanation of why (Score:5, Insightful)
Now let's say you're married. This chips away at the amount of free time, but not too much. Maybe this cuts down your evenings a bit, and you never do anything on Friday, but it's still a lot of time.
Now you have kids. To make a long story short, this takes away most of your evenings and weekends, dropping you from 20-30 free hours a week to a few here and there which you have to plan far ahead for and during which you're most likely going to be very tired. It's hard to want to jump into a creative activity during those few hours.
Also, you likely have a house by this point. Now you have maintenance and mowing and so on to eat up any free hours you may have. The realization hits you that even if you could write the great american novel it would take three years of 1-2 hours per week to finish it.
Causality is not addressed (Score:3, Insightful)
The article does a pretty crappy job of demonstrating causality.
While the findings may indeed be true that those who are married exhibit a decrease in creative output, the study doesn't say whether or not "Creative men who's creativity is beginning to wane may suddenly get married" --or -- "Consistently creative men are less likely to marry", or in fact as the article suggests: "Marriage decreases creativity".
Genius/Creativity vs. Stablity/Happiness (Score:5, Insightful)
A broader look at the subject would show a parallel with a more modern topic: anti-depression medications. There are plenty of examples of highly creative people -- geniuses in their fields -- whose creativity would likely have been quashed if they'd had access to a good Selective Seratonin Reuptake Inhibitor. Poet Emily Dickinson [washingtonpost.com] and artist Vincent Van Gogh [vangoghgallery.com] come to mind, but I'm sure there are many others.
The problem, as I see it, isn't that having a family takes something away from a would-be genius... any more than an appropriate dosage of Prozac does. What both do, ideally, is give the person a sense of contentment, a feeling that things are the way they should be.
Creativity, in the end, often requires adversity to bring it out. Remove the adversity, and the creativity (or "genius") may seem to be extinguished. But as the examples in this discussion show -- Bach, Hawking, et al -- it is possible to achieve both genius and happiness. It just doesn't happen very often.
Re:Still more geniuses with children (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at classical Greece. It was quite common for men to have large families with their wives locked at home, engage in sexual relationships with young boys, not to mention have the occasional drunken symposium with lots of prostitutes and wine.
It used to be an accepted fact that women have a negative impact upon masculine creativity and they should be prevented from dominating a man's life and time as much as possible.
I don't know about Frank Lloyd Wright, but Einstein was definitely a philanderer and had many lovers. He didn't let any one woman dominate him or share his home for his entire life. Stephen Hawking, for obvious reasons, was hardly the man a woman would want to spend all her time with.
We don't have any social customs today which attempt to control women's ability to distract men. They flaunt their bodies everywhere with impunity, preventing us from determining when and where we are sexually aroused. Women today expect copious amounts of attention as a normal part of a relationship. Establishments which exclude women are generally illegal, although the same is not true for women (Look at how many Female only gyms are out there).
Anyway, you had a short post.. don't mean it to seem like I am ripping on you, but I think having and desiring children is just as normal for a man as a woman. What is not normal is the modern concept of male/female relationships which has developed since the Victorian era.
Re:Output, not potential (Score:2, Insightful)
However, I don't think I am any more or less creative than before. What has happend is that I can not find time to implement anything. After work (only 8 hours) it is off to home to take the baby so the wife can make dinner. After cleanup and all it is aready 8 PM. Get baby to bed and hopefully get some sex! Then much needed sleep. End of day.
Now that the baby is sleeping more I get up at 2AM and catch up on all the work I was not able to do in the work day. Then I sneak back to bed before the alarm goes off at 7AM. I was used to 12+ hour work days but in order to make the wife happy I now have to keep normal hours.
Maybe I can squeeze some creativity in around 4AM? You claim you are more creaative? I don't believe it for a minute. Unless your wife is a Geek as well (or a doctor).
Re:Output, not potential (Score:2, Insightful)
These are not the rantings of a frustrated, unattached geek. I've been happily married to the same woman for, um, let's see..... well, a long time....
Re:Aw, cripes (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, maybe it is just that the creative genius changes to some extent.... Obviously children require a creative attitude towards, so maybe they become the focus of the creative genius instead of things like computers, physics, etc... What do you all think?
Re:Output, not potential (Score:1, Insightful)
You, my friend, have been reading too much Dr. John Gray.
Younger women (under 20 or so) tend to be attracted to physical characteristics and the "bad boy" image (disrespectful and rebellious attitudes toward them and others), whereas older women (mid 20s and older) are more attracted to money (or earning potential, for instance a poor student in law or med school).
I've never met a woman drawn to a man's intellectual abilities. Sure, there may be a few out there, just as there may be a few mutants out there with only one eye.
Geeks, do yourself a favor. Don't hold out looking for the girl that respects your intellectual might or one who shares your love of recompiling your kernel. Get yourself into reasonable shape, and grab hold of the first woman who lets you put your dick in her.
Data vs. Interpretation (Score:5, Insightful)
Or to turn a different interpretation on this data, once married, a scientist is less likely to be able to spend 15 hours a day in the lab.
Well, this should be a very easy hypothesis to test. Female scientists should show less of a drop after their marriage, since they should be less affected by the "all-important male hormone."
This guy theorizes that testosterone levels drop after marriage, and therefore so does the competitive drive, and therefore one's level of contribution to science. This seems to be a LOT of interpretation to read into a small amount of data.
Re:Output, not potential (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why I like metamoderation a lot, and I use it often. Unless someone has a very good reason to moderate someone down, I rate their moderation as "unfair". You're supposed to use your mod points to help the good posts, not just to bash stuff.
Re:Output, not potential (Score:2, Insightful)
There are plenty of intelligent educated professional women out there, I've established that as fact, but the gentleman in question can't seem to see them.
Most likely that's because he's one of the many men who can't see past the dumb pouting teenagers with large chests - and then wonders why women act dumb and spend on cosmetics silicone and peroxide. It's nothing to do with society raising women - it's women's response to what men indicate they prefer (we get what we ask for).
The other reason intelligent women often get ignored is men are scared of them - scared they might be too (ie. more) intelligent. Genius tends to come with significant ego (or it may be that the genius tends to become _recognised_ genius due to the ego) - which may make that reason even more likely in the male genius' choice of partner.
Me, I don't have a problem finding intelligent women, and I've often ended up with women that my male peers regard as "scary" (and I'm now married to one who was widely regarded as "very scary"). Me, I think scary is fun. No, I'm not a submissive either (far from it), I'm just not scared.
I still have the ego as well, just tempered by a pragmatic (& lazy) view of life - my ego would care not if my wife earns more than me if it means I get to stay home and play lego/trains/computer-games with kids while someone else pays the bills - ego be damned, that's pretty much my dream life!
Re:Two words sum it all up..... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Aw, cripes (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Output, not potential (Score:2, Insightful)
At least, that's what I think his point was. And I'd say it's a fairly decent one.
Re:Output, not potential (Score:4, Insightful)
But Tolstoy's take on it was that the fire and edge and all that she had when she was single was really a consequence of her desire, her longing for a family; and now that she has it, she is satisfied.
Obviously I don't put it nearly as well as Tolstoy did, but it was a neat observation. Probably the same thing applies. I don't buy the "trying to attract a mate" obligatory darwinism crap; but I do buy that energy, fire, edge, whatever can come from our lack of fulfillment, and that fulfillment has the side-effect of turning off our "genius".
Luckily, I'm still single, so I might make it big yet...
Re:People change their priorities. (Score:5, Insightful)
The thought of my entire life revolving around kids makes me cringe.
Then by all means, don't have them. The last thing the world needs is another daddy who doesn't want to be one. Not a slam but I get the feeling my single/childless friends expect me to try and talk them into having children. Not me! If no kids is the life for you, rock on.
Re:Aw, cripes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Losing the competitive edge or getting a life? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Aw, cripes (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course his wife was like "All I want for my birthday is a Proof" (probably not adding, "so I can start nagging you about taking out the garbage!")
HIGHLY Misleading... (Score:2, Insightful)
First, the article actually states that only 25%, a marked MINORITY of said "geniuses," have made their last significant contribution within 5 years of having been married. This is a far cry from the sweeping claim of the introduction.
Second, it's a reasonably well known fact that historically most major thinkers, whether ultimately married or not, have produced their greatest work before the age of 35.
This article is really nothing more than a confirmation of what we've all known for years:
A) that among scientists and their ilk there exists a certain unfortunate subgroup of obsessive/compulsives who simply cannot manage the demands of work and an actual life simultaneously.
B) that at least 25% of slashdot articles, within 5 hours of being posted, will be utterly debunked.
Re:Aw, cripes (Score:2, Insightful)
No, I don't think so. If your creative genius doesn't normally run toward interpersonal relationships (if so, why are you reading Slashdot?), marriage and kids can be major distractions and energy sinks if not handled properly.
Some suggestions:
0) Hold off getting married. Women will find you more attractive as you get more successful, as long as you stay half-way fit. Either exercise, or stick to a low-carb diet, or both.
1) Pick a dedicated career/professional woman to marry - and yes, you can pick, if you apply your genius to figuring out how to stack the odds in your favor.
2) Apply a bit of your genius to making the money you need for as little effort as possible. Don't cave into fear and take a "9-5" (life-eating) job just to cover expenses. See also (1) above - if you can't afford a housewife, don't marry one.
3) Hire a nanny as soon as you get kids. Schedule generous time with your kids - but schedule more time away from them.
4) Develop the habit of continuously updating a journal or notebook, so you don't lose your train of thought when you do get interrupted - and you will, if you're married with kids.
well f**k me... (Score:2, Insightful)
But seriously, I'm not really surprised at these results. All of the prolific scientists I know were "made" early in their career, OR they ignore their families so much they might as well be considered single.
Re:Still more geniuses with children (Score:4, Insightful)
It used to be an accepted fact that women have a negative impact upon masculine creativity and they should be prevented from dominating a man's life and time as much as possible.
It's an accepted fact that men have a negative impact upon feminine creativity and should be prevented from dominating a woman's life and time as much as possible. The traditional view of marriage sees the wife as housekeeper, mother, cook, caretaker, etc... all roles that ask her to serve others, instead of expressing herself or being creative. Yes, those jobs are important, and involve some creativity - but not in ways that society respets in men, such as writing, research, or art. Why do you think there was a whole movement by women so that being unmarried wouldn't be stigmatized like in the past? Do you think that *maybe* the 'traditional marriage' you refer to is the reason women have made up a minority of artists and scientists?
Hell, you're not even affirming commited relationships - you seem to approve of men "[having] their wives locked at home, engage[ing] in sexual relationships with young boys, not to mention have the occasional drunken symposium with lots of prostitutes and wine." As if drunkenly fucking a young boy makes you more creative, and demanding that one sleep only with a spouse is, like, waaaay too confining, man... free love(for the men), you dig? I won't even get into the fact that you disapprove of women 'flauning their bodies' a few paragraphs later.
The poster reminds me of this exchange from "Dr. Strangelove":
Capt. Mandrake: Uh, Jack, Jack, listen, tell me, tell me, Jack. When did you first... become... well, develop this theory?
General Ripper: Well, I, uh... I... I... first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love.
Capt. Mandrake: Hmm.
General Ripper: Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.
Capt. Mandrake: Hmm.
General Ripper: I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh... women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women, Mandrake.
Capt. Mandrake: No.
General Ripper: But I... I do deny them my essence.
Re:Aw, cripes (Score:4, Insightful)
3) Volunteer at the local elementary school twice a year (or less if you don't have THAT much time waste)
That way you can save on the price of the nanny, and leave the child rearing to LOVING parents. I know you probably think this is serious flame-bait, but if you are going to create a human being, then it is YOUR responsibility to raise them. If you don't want that responsibility, don't take it on.
********************
5% Inspiration, 95% Perspiration... (Score:2, Insightful)
were they all geniuses ? (Score:1, Insightful)
* if you choose to refute this , I challenge you to use examples beyond Physics.
Re:Output, not potential (Score:2, Insightful)
If society raised men better, they will be more attracted to girls that have a brain instead of booty. They wouldn't leave as soon as they get scared because their penis started a responsibility. They wouldn't constantly go after girls with T and A and no real education, I mean look at what sells to boys (Maxim, Stuff, Pamela...). If boys weren't whining all the time about wanting something 'hot' (countdown to Natalie Portman being legal ring any bells...?), then maybe, finally we wouldn't have this problem that smart girls can't find suitable companions.
Re:Output, not potential (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: No, that *is* flamebait.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think this guy is serious (Score:2, Insightful)