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."
Just one point though.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't you think that after fighting for the attention of women, the "scientist" would go ahead and concentrate on other stuff: his scientific career? You know with one thing out of the way, even lesser mortals like us pay attention to other issues.
Just a thought. I wonder what happens to women scientists when they get married!
Association vs. Causation (Score:5, Interesting)
Cheers,
IT
Tell that to Linus (Score:2, Interesting)
Madam Curie (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it depends on who you marry mostly - in Madam Curie's case - her husband Pierre was a helpmate. And anyways - the article states that most scientists drop out at 30 or after 5 years (of marriage). Well - if most people get married about 24 (assumming Geeks marry late) or so - 5 years later they're 30.
Re:Output, not potential (Score:5, Interesting)
If our society raised women better, so that they'd pick better partners (not the asshole/badboy type), not become single mothers in their youth, get a good education, go into intellectual fields, not be whiny bitches, etc., then maybe we wouldn't have this problem and more of these genius men could find suitable companions.
Being vs Becoming successful... (Score:5, Interesting)
(There's a similar thing with cars: If you're single, having a cool sports-car will help you attract women. Once you've married, she'll want you to trade it in for something more 'practical'.)
Allen Ginsberg (Score:1, Interesting)
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,
...who lost their loveboys to the three old shrews of fate
the one eyed shrew of the heterosexual dollar
the one eyed shrew that winks out of the womb
and the one eyed shrew that does nothing but sit on her ass and snip the intellectual golden threads of the craftsman's loom
Re:D'OH! (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, they say Mediocrity borrows while Genius steals, so maybe the two are more closely related than ya think...
On the other hand, people talk about Hemingway having one good book for each wife... so if you're a genius and worried, you can still be a serial polygamist.
Re:This is a surprise? (Score:3, Interesting)
bachelor for life
Except Einstein...Feynman... (Score:1, Interesting)
Einstein had a kid and was married before publishing Special Relativity in '05. He completed general relativity in about 1917 if I recall correctly.
Kids and women (quite plural) didn't slow him down that much. Or, if they did, I wonder what he would have come up with had he been alone?
I do better work now that I'm married than I did when I was single. Perhaps frequent sex helps stir the creative juices...
DJ
All joking aside... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Aw, cripes (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the process goes something like this: Man sits around thinking up smart stuff all day, which requires a certain amount of practice. You don't just wake up thinking smart stuff - you kinda gotta work into it. Those first ideas upon waking are probably not going to be winners in anyone's book.
To continue, then, one day, Woman gets introduced into the environment. So now Man has to go have sex. Hey, he thinks, this is fun - maybe I better practice this instead. So now, instead of thinking up smart stuff all the time, he's having sex and thinking up smart stuff, not in equal measure and probably without a whole lot of consideration to the fact that smart stuff requires practice, just like sex.
So, now all of a sudden, he's dumb as a rock. Dumber even. Except it doesn't matter. Wow, he thinks, I don't have to be smart to have sex - in fact, Woman get's pretty upset when I think up smart stuff while having sex, so maybe it's just better if I have sex and stop trying to be so smart all the time.
That's my view of how genius ends.
As to the claim that one doesn't have to be to bright to have sex - go to any Walmart sometime. There's the proof right there. I swear they import hillbillies to attend every Walmart. There's can't be that many badly dressed, foul-mouthed, gaptoothed ignorami with equally dumb spawn in the world, can there?
You can either be a great person or a great parent (Score:3, Interesting)
Lots of great people have tried to be parents. What happened? They ended up being "distant", "unknowable" (i.e., shitty) parents becuase they were spending no time with their kids. After all, they couldn't afford to spend any time with their kids -- all of their precious time was spent doing things that made them into a great person.
And what is the primary requisite for being a great parent? Spending time with your children! It doesn't have to be some exalted kind of "quality time", just spend time with them! Even watching television with your child is infinitely better than spending no time with your child.
So if you have the desire to be a great person, give up on the idea of having children. You will end up doing a disservice to them.
Re:People change their priorities. (Score:3, Interesting)
Honestly, I was very uncertain about having kids. Scared, in fact. My kids are now 11 and 6.
At some point after the first kid was born, I realized "THIS is what it's all about. This is IT, I wan't even living before. I had no idea what life was about before now."
I now live in a greatly expanded world that I wouldn't even have known if I'd followed my initial feelings. Just like I'm sure you are thinking right now as you read this, when I heard people talking like this before, I thought "there goes a whipped idiot." I won't argue with you, because nobody would believe it until they've been there, so I'd be wasting my time.
I have friends without kids, and they're happy. I have kids, and I'm happy. Whatever works for you, that's great, but realize that (I think, for most people, certainly for me) kids are absolutely the best thing that has or will ever happen to me.
When I talk to older people, in their 80's and 90's, one thing that they often talk about is that ALL of their friends are dead. People sometimes live 10 or 20 years past when most/all of their friends are gone. Those unlucky enough to be on that end of the bell curve, AND who don't have kids, will typically spend their last decade or so lonely and lost, staring into space in a world that they no longer have any connection to, and that, finally, they realize that they have left no lasting impression on.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to live vicariously through my kids, but in the end, kids are the only way (short of the improbable chance of becoming a billionaire or making a world-changing breakthrough) to have a real, positive effect on the future. Just as we live with such wonderful advantages because of our ancestors, I think it's important to do something to make sure that future generations are in some way positively impacted by your life.
I didn't have kids specifically to leave a legacy, nor do I think about it from day to day, but those who have kids have a duty to both them and the world in general to try to help the kids understand that we all have a responsibility to try to make things better. Very few people can do enough within the span of their own lives to make any real difference. But if you continue a line of a family in which each generation does a little bit of good, the "compound interest" will start adding up.
Re:D'OH! (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it's more closely related to potential. The more potential you have, the more options you have to exercise that potential. So if, for example, you're really smart, you're left with a choice of how you want to use that intelligence. Either for something productive (genius) or for something antisocial (crime).
As far as getting married and having kids and the impact that it has on your potential. Well, I have a very well thought out treatise on the subject. But I'm married and have kids, and frankly I'm too tired to type it in right now. Hopefully I'll get to it later. But probably not, I have to take the kids to 100 activities, and then there's the honey-do list...
Got it backwards... (Score:2, Interesting)
Artists don't necessarily have to win their way to the top of the heap and 'discredit' other artists in order to be considered great artists. Not that many of them don't try to destroy/discredit others... Artists are often driven by testosterone, too.
So, you're a young scientist and you make a 'big break through' in some technical field like physics or biology. It destroys some old school of thought and puts hundreds or thousands of other scientists into 'catchup' mode to understand what you've done. You get accolades, and job offers at important universities/research labs. You start raking in the cash and enjoying your status. What next? Hmm, time to get married and have kids. You'll have a much better choice of mates than you would have before the 'big breakthrough' thanks to your new status.
Now you're successful and all that. You could try to investigate your own theory and see if there's anything new to learn. But now you are the 'established school of thought'... why discredit your own work? It's gotten you all these perks! And besides, you've got all these colleagues now who like your theory. If you try to change it you could end up in conflict with many of them, and endanger your status! See the disincentive to break the mold and make any more 'great discoveries' in science once you've arrived? You'll have strong incentives to maintain your theory and build on it, even if it's only 'wrong in a different way than the old one'
It's not that getting married and having kids ruins genius. It's that geniuses who want to relax and enjoy life get married and have kids.
Re:D'OH! (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Output, not potential (Score:2, Interesting)
I detest anyone who assumes my qualities based on my gender. I detest mind games. And, I like dating nice guys who help me be the best me (and I them).
Partnership is a two-way street. You are correct in your assertions that men should pick their women to enhance their qualities, not detract from them. But realize women should be picking their men accordingly as well -- good qualities enhance each other to a mutual benefit. You are incorrect in your presentation of the assertion, for you are showing yourself to be an inadequate partner yourself by giving only blame and distrust to the relationship, not a partnership where you also enhance their qualities.
Re:Output, not potential (Score:3, Interesting)
I would seriously urge anyone reading this post to think very hard about how they view intellectual accomplishment, and decide if they think a male-dominated conception of intellectual greatness is either fair or rational.
I'm not sure why you think this a zealous position, or how it is telling people what they should or should not think. I am also not sure what your argument is. You have said there are more great male than female geniuses. I agree. You said it is ridiculous to change one's perception of greatness merely to equalize male and female outcomes. I agree. You mentioned several individuals whom you regard by their output and not by society's blessing. I have no reason to doubt you, but would mention that the matter is worthy of introspection. None of these facts has anything to do with my argument.