Posted on 01/02/2005 2:29:21 PM PST by FormerACLUmember
A HIGH IQ is a hindrance for women wanting to get married, while it is an asset for men, according to a study by four British universities.
The study found the likelihood of marriage increased by 35 per cent for males for each 16-point increase in IQ.
But for females, there was a 40 per cent drop for each 16-point rise.
The findings, by the universities of Aberdeen, Bristol, Edinburgh and Glasgow, were published in Britain's Sunday Times newspaper.
The study was based on the IQs of 900 males and females between their 10th and 40th birthdays.
Paul Brown, a psychologist and professor at Nottingham University, told the Sunday Times: "Women in their late 30s who have gone for careers after the first flush of university and who are among the brightest of their generation are finding that men are just not interesting enough."
Writer and broadcaster Claire Rayner said intelligent men often prefered a less brainy partner.
"A chap with a high IQ is going to get a demanding job that is going to take up a lot of his energy and time.
"In many ways he wants a woman who is an old-fashioned wife and looks after the home, a copy of his mum in a way."
Never met the lady.
And I would never cross my EOD support. BRRRRRRR!
Wait to you hear the same speech six months after you are married.
I am a mathematician.
I guess that explains why I have been married so many times! :-)
Point taken. :)
Intelligence is marrying up. Cheating is lack of morals. The two, while are not mutually exclusive, are not particularly strongly linked.
You have new data?
Just anecdotal. But you need to look at the "resource rich man" and what he is and represents. Typically he is accomplished in his field and has varying amounts of "fame" and respect by a small or larger community. Usually smart, driven, and engaged in life on a large scale. These are genuinely attractive traits for many women.
So, when you see these pictures of the short little fat guys with the tall blondes in the gossip pages, assume there's more of a link there than you would suppose. Then, of course, there's the prenups, which are fairly carefully worded these days.
Thank you. This is the first decent explanation of women's OCD regarding their vast, overpriced shoe collections.
You're right also. I am not really trying to flame or get people upset. I've had a wife at both ends of the spectrum, and can see strengths in each.
Nicole-Smith: "I'm not really good with all those zeros "
HA !
The message intelligent women should hear is: you are a breeding machine that society has attempted to defeat and sidetrack, with false promises of a life made more worthwhile by intellectual achievement.
What's happening to young people is population control operating on a very personal level. Most "educated" young people cannot afford the lifestyle they have been programmed to desire (apartment or house on the safe/stylish side of town, high-status college degrees, newish cars, ski vacations, blue locale (e.g., SF)) without a second income.
The real winners and survivors in this society are the people who embrace a life of sruggle and probable poverty without the likelihood of high-status frills, who marry poor and are happy about it, and generally don't compete very hard in the race to die with the most "toys".
I have never met anyone who was happy about being poor. I've spent time in "the ghetto" and have never heard anyone even remotely express that sentiment.
The real winners in society are those who, well, win. They compete and win. They succeed at their work, in their family life and intellectually. Naturally, it follows that the losers are those who lose. They either compete (or don't compete) and don't win.
Well - *DUH*!!!
The real problem is that successful women STILL carry with them the 'security' gene - i.e., no matter HOW successful they are, they STILL WANT a man MORE SUCCESSFUL than they are....
...but those men are already married - to more traditional women....
....oh feminism is a nasty conundrum, isn't it?
If you want to know what a woman will look like in 20 years, look at her mother. But if you want to know how smart a guy is, talk to his wife.
It has destroyed much of the female population, completely ruining their lives.
I'm making the case for the anti-status, be satisfied-with-less lifestyle. Young people are encouraged to desire things beyond their financial reach; to pull it off, they commit to two-wage-earner lifestyles that make it hard to raise a family.
I have done it the "poor" way -- foregoing expensive addresses, nice cars, fancy stereos and all kinds of "stuff" -- just to be able to raise a family. In my young adult children, I see the pressures they face to conform to the consumptive lifestyle.
And yes, I may have lived in the "ghetto" as long as you. By choice.
"If you want to know what a woman will look like in 20 years, look at her mother. But if you want to know how smart a guy is, talk to his wife."
So you're telling me that, my Ivy-League education and Phi Beta Kappa Key aside, I am a hopeless loser?
That's why the word (former) will be apended soon. And may the Good Lord have mercy on the next victim ;0)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.