Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Older fathers have 'geekier sons'

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 118 posts

Re: Older fathers have 'geekier sons'

#81

Post by olewhalehunter »

s_kilk wrote: post #76
awkwarddaturtle wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is some Phrenology-grade bullshit

https://rbej.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12958-015-0...

"Effects of increased paternal age on sperm quality, reproductive outcome and associated epigenetic risks to offspring"

Re: Older fathers have 'geekier sons'

#82

Post by dragonwriter »

zhemao wrote: post #67
ouid wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "defective genes"?

Genetic mutations. As you get older, you accumulate more genetic damage, which can be passed on to children. It's fairly well-studied that children of older parents are more susceptible to genetic disorders.

But even at fairly old ages, the levels are very low. Yes, they are several multiples of the rates at younger ages, but the base rates are also very, very low.

So, it's a real issue, but it's also very was to percieved it as much bigger than it is.

Re: Older fathers have 'geekier sons'

#83

Post by usrusr »

samirillian wrote: post #12
rocktronica wrote: post #3

Sure seems like correlation to me. Older fathers are more likely to have established careers, establishing higher socioeconomic status, affording a lifestyle that engenders "geekiness".

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.

I would not limit it to athleticism: men generally tend to lose "broism" and gain "wisdom" as they age. The relative levels of bravado and bookish authority that young boys could admire will therefore vary a lot with the age of the father. In addition to that, children calibrate their perception of normality to however their parents are. Many people believe that they don't want to be like their parents, but this normality calibration influences them nonetheless.

Re: Older fathers have 'geekier sons'

#84

Post by 0x4d464d48 »

jessaustin wrote: post #70
0x4d464d48 wrote: post #33

I read an article a couple of months ago about autism being linked to delayed fatherhood: http://www.nature.com/news/fathers-bequeath-more-mutations-a... . Being different was something that touched near and dear to my heart like many self-conscious geeks and my old man didn't have me until he was 41. I know N=1... but when you're debating with your friends whether or not this ( http://imgur.com/m52Wo4a ) can be clas…

How would that not be a sandwich?

There are several points of contention but here are some of the most common points I've encountered:

- When the term 'sandwich' is used in reference to a bagel being used for the 'bread' there is a presumption that the bagel is sliced along a transverse equatorial plane with the hole of the bagel being orthogonal to the ground. This photo clearly defies that convention.

- A sandwich by most conventions is kept between two or more slices of bread in layers. If there are more than two layers between bread in a sandwich they are stacked vertically and separated by individual slices of bread. The subject under discussion has two layers, which is conventionally acceptable for a sandwich to have, but they are not stacked vertically. Some scholars have argued that this means that it is incorrect to call this a 'sandwich' in the singular sense but it is acceptable to call the entity a composition of 'sandwiches'.

This is just a taste of the great bagel debate currently raging across very small niches of geeks but hopefully it gives you a flavour of why no definitive answer has been accepted by the community. And this has not even touched on the bagel-complete problems such as the topological properties of the mobius bagel http://images.tastespotting.com/uploads/thumbnail/125155.jpg.

Re: Older fathers have 'geekier sons'

#85

Post by ouid »

zhemao wrote: post #67
ouid wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "defective genes"?

Genetic mutations. As you get older, you accumulate more genetic damage, which can be passed on to children. It's fairly well-studied that children of older parents are more susceptible to genetic disorders.

I have two problems with your argument.

To start, I'm going to assume that, by defective, you mean unintentional, correct me if I'm wrong. This is equivalent to the assertion that there is no feasible mechanism to preventing your germ cells from accumulating damage due to age, because otherwise, if it was maladapative, AND evolution could design a mechanism for preventing it, it would have. It's been long enough since mammals started reproducing sexually.

This doesn't even make a little bit of sense though. It's clearly possible to keep the error rate constant. What's the difference between the germ cells in my body and the germ cells in my offspring's body. Why do those last longer?

As you grow older, your offspring have more genetic diversity. It seems like the accumulation of mutations is intentional for older parents. The more similar your children are, the more likely they are to compete with each other, and the older you are, the more children you are already likely to have. So I propose that this is not a defect, but rather by design.

Second, why on earth does this explain the hypothesis? Nerds are smarter on average, yes? Does it not make at least twice as much sense that smarter individuals are sexually attractive at older ages than athletic ones than reasoning that genetic defects are the thing that makes a person smart.

Re: Older fathers have 'geekier sons'

#86

Post by nostrademons »

dragonwriter wrote: post #54
rocktronica wrote: post #3

Sure 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.

Curious what the correlation is between geekiness, length in career, and career success of women, and also how career success correlates with the age of parenthood.

My completely unscientific impression is that scientific & mathematic acumen generates less of a financial return for women, and that when it does, it tends to generate a return earlier, with technical skills providing a foot in the door but subsequent success due to professional relationships. If, as I think the grandparent is suggesting, you posit that the reason for the observed correlation is that geekier males tend to be the ones that have children late in life (as opposed to earlier or not at all), then if geekiness in females leads to either no delay or not having children at all, you wouldn't observe the effect in females.

Re: Older fathers have 'geekier sons'

#87

Post by quadrangle »

cbanek wrote: post #43
quadrangle wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

look up the difference between inheritable and heritable. Very linguistically bizarre. (note: am not OP from above)

heritable - able to be inherited, in particular. inheritable - capable of being inherited. Inflammable means flammable? What a country. Sure you can inherit behaviors, but I'm trying to be specific and say I don't believe it's genetically inherited, but a behavior that is learned. Kids learn by mimicking.

Okay but in genetics, these terms are used distinctly for some reason.

Heritable → polygenic attributes that may be partially passed on

Inheritable → (mainly monogenic) attributes that can be passed on

Something like that, I don't get it really but genetics uses the terms differently. Searched for deeper resources, didn't find any easily.

Re: Older fathers have 'geekier sons'

#88

Post by bykovich2 »

manyoso wrote: post #23
cbanek wrote: post #16

I'm seriously confused on this. First, the article throws out some very reasonable sounding things, like older dads are more established and stable parents. This seems totally legit. Then they start talking of a 'geek gene' that gets passed down by dads as they get older? That seems ridiculous to me. We don't even know how general intelligence works on a genetic level. Overall, I feel like we put way too much stock i…

Almost every study on early childhood development and later outcomes shows that how a child is raised has very little to do with outcomes compared to heredity. https://www.vox.com/2015/8/11/9127769/parenting-advice-worth... https://www.vox.com/2015/3/31/8320233/time-spent-with-kids http://quillette.com/2016/01/19/heritability-and-why-parents...

Ah yes, Vox and Quillette, the child development journals of record.

Re: Older fathers have 'geekier sons'

#89

Post by dep_b »

awkwarddaturtle wrote: post #48
rocktronica wrote: post #3

Sure 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…

It's an on/off situation. Genetic defects happen 1:100 when the mother is 40 and 1:100000 when the mother is 23.

But in 99:100 cases the kids are as healthy as the ones of a 23 year old mother.

I don't have the exact numbers but it's something in that ballpark.

It's not a weak versus strong physical thing. And it would affect mental capacities at the same rate. Geeks are usually not dumber than average.

Re: Older fathers have 'geekier sons'

#90

Post by smu3l »

kcanini wrote: post #59
MikeTheGreat wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not true, you do not have to control for everything. You have to control for everything that may have an effect on both the treatment and the outcome. That implies you have to assume that everything you don't control for does not affect both the treatment and outcome, (though something can affect one). This assumption is not testable but sometimes reasonable.

You also have to assume that it's possible for every person/unit of study to have a non-zero probability of receiving either treatment for all levels of the variables you are controlling for in order for the effect you're estimating to be defined. That is more likely to be violated the more things you have to control for.

Post reply on HN