My dad had me at 23. I am relatively geeky. I don't think it makes much of a difference.
Older fathers have 'geekier sons'
51–60 of 118 posts
Re: Older fathers have 'geekier sons'
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would also seem that they're less likely to play sports with their children. I wonder if there's a way to isolate athleticism from geekiness.
Plenty of men with single mothers* learn to play sports just fine (see many NBA and NFL players). *This is not to say that women don't play sports with their sons, but to say that it's silly to assume that all young fathers play sports with their sons.
Having a single mother would means kids are by themselves and playing with neighborhood kids. Having an older father means being at home more.
Re: Older fathers have 'geekier sons'
#53Sure seems like correlation to me. Older fathers are more likely to have established careers, establishing higher socioeconomic status, affording a lifestyle that engenders "geekiness".
That could be true, but older fathers also have more defective genes, are less able to play with their children, etc. The children are just genetically "weaker", have more physical issues and participate in far less physical activity because their father is so old. This is anecdotal evidence but one of my friends had a very old dad. He had issues which forced him to wear bifocals and hence he didn't participate in sp…
What do you mean by "defective genes"?
Re: Older fathers have 'geekier sons'
#54Sure seems like correlation to me. Older fathers are more likely to have established careers, establishing higher socioeconomic status, affording a lifestyle that engenders "geekiness".
Those things are all true of older mothers, too, yet maternal age had no effect.
And, likewise, no similar effect was seen on daughters, either from older fathers or older mothers.
Re: Older fathers have 'geekier sons'
#55Or is it that geekier fathers have children later in life?
Re: Older fathers have 'geekier sons'
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plus the tendency towards later parenthood for those focused on achieving a higher education and/or advanced career. If someone has a "geekier" career path or educational background, they're almost certainly more likely to have geekier children.
Shouldn't they control for that? Otherwise it's simply correlation rather than causation.
I don't think that controlling for variables can produce a conclusion of causation. (I'm posting half because I think this is correct, and half because I'd love to hear someone more knowledgeable about statistics confirm or deny this :) )
I think that controlling for variables means that you've tried to reduce the impact of other variables on the two that you're interested in. From Wikipedia: "In statistics, controlling for a variable is the attempt to reduce the effect of confounding variables on an observational study. It means that when looking at the effect of one variable, all other variable predictors are held constant." [1]
If you could control for all other variables then you'd know how much of a connection between the two variables that you're looking at.
I think this doesn't guarantee causation, though - you'd need to do experiments where you adjust the independent variable and then verify that the dependent variable changes the way you're proposing it should.
At least, I think that's how it works. Anyone else want to chime in?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlling_for_a_variable
Re: Older fathers have 'geekier sons'
#57Sure seems like correlation to me. Older fathers are more likely to have established careers, establishing higher socioeconomic status, affording a lifestyle that engenders "geekiness".
From another article about this research [1], here's what they controlled for in terms of other potential correlations:
"This effect persisted after controlling for parent's social/economic status, qualifications and employment."
[1] https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-06/kcl-odh06191...
Haven't read the original paper yet, so no opinion on quality of the reported research.
Re: Older fathers have 'geekier sons'
#58The findings seem a little off to me. My father was 26 when I was born and he was a leather cutter, so our family wasn't advantaged in any way. He was also a hopeless parent and played very little part in my personal development, despite being physically present throughout my childhood. The really key environmental factors that led me to being a geek can firmly be put down to: My Mother taking me to the library every…
“I don't fit the pattern” is not a strong reason for rejecting research findings that claim an increased probability of an outcome based on an input, not an sine qua non relationship.
anecdote < data.
Re: Older fathers have 'geekier sons'
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shouldn't they control for that? Otherwise it's simply correlation rather than causation.
I don't think that controlling for variables can produce a conclusion of causation. (I'm posting half because I think this is correct, and half because I'd love to hear someone more knowledgeable about statistics confirm or deny this :) ) I think that controlling for variables means that you've tried to reduce the impact of other variables on the two that you're interested in. From Wikipedia: "In statistics, controll…
Yes, you're right. To guarantee causation, you need to either directly manipulate the variable, or control for every other variable in the universe (impossible). The more extraneous variables you control for, though, the more evidence you have for causation.
Re: Older fathers have 'geekier sons'
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shouldn't they control for that? Otherwise it's simply correlation rather than causation.
I don't think that controlling for variables can produce a conclusion of causation. (I'm posting half because I think this is correct, and half because I'd love to hear someone more knowledgeable about statistics confirm or deny this :) ) I think that controlling for variables means that you've tried to reduce the impact of other variables on the two that you're interested in. From Wikipedia: "In statistics, controll…
> I don't think that controlling for variables can produce a conclusion of causation.
Controlling for variables can rule out alternative causal relationships (shared causes between A and B rather than A causes B) as explanation for correlation, but can't rule out coincidence. They strengthen the case for these plausibility of a causal explanation.