Nonstopdrivel
13 years ago


The Scientific Fundamentalist

A Look at the Hard Truths About Human Nature
by Satoshi Kanazawa

Why Are Older Parents More Likely to Have Daughters?
 
Once again, parents are more crucial to sons than to daughters

Published on April 17, 2011 by Satoshi Kanazawa in The Scientific Fundamentalist

One of the consistent findings in the field of reproductive medicine is that older parents are more likely to have daughters. Why?
Previous studies have repeatedly found that one of the reliable predictors of the sex of the offspring is the age of the parent. Older parents are significantly more likely to have daughters than younger parents.

The National Child Development Study replicates these findings from earlier studies. As the following graph shows, the association between the age of the parent and the sex of the first child is not monotonic, but there is a general decline in the proportion of sons as the parents get older. Teenage parents are particularly likely to have sons, with the proportion of sons at .5327, and older parents over the age of 40 are significantly less likely to have sons, with the proportion of sons at .3557. Two-thirds of children born to parents over 40 are girls! The bivariate correlation between the probability of having a son and the age of the parent is significantly negative (r = -.030, p < .001, n = 9,301). Each year in the parent’s age decreases the odds of having a son as the first child by 1%.

UserPostedImage

As you can see in the following two graphs, the association between the age of the parents and the sex of the first child is stronger among women than among men. In fact, the bivariate correlation between the probability of having a son and the age of the parent is only statistically significantly negative among women (r = -.34, p < .05, n = 4,864), not among men (r = -.024, ns, n = 4,437). Among women, each year in age decreases the odds of having a son as the first child by 1.2%. However, the graph below clearly shows that fathers over the age of 40 are significantly less likely to have sons, with the proportion of sons at .3592.

UserPostedImage

UserPostedImage

Given the prevalence of age homogamy, where the age of the mother and the age of the father are generally positively correlated such that younger women are typically married to younger men and older women are typically married to older men, the slight sex difference in the pattern is not important. The overall picture is that the older the parents (both the mother and the father), the more likely they are to have a daughter. The question is: why?

Because both the quality of the eggs and the quality of the sperm decrease with age, it is tempting to explain the declining likelihood of having a son among older parents potentially in terms of such quality of gametes (although I’m not aware of any argument that suggests that lower-quality gametes are more likely to produce girls). However, such explanations, even when correct, are proximate, not ultimate. They answer the question of how; they don’t answer the question of why. The lower quality of gametes, if it indeed lowers the probability of producing boys, is the mechanism that evolution employs to make sure that older parents are more likely to have daughters. But such a proximate mechanism does not explain why evolution “wanted” to make sure that older parents are more likely to have daughters, in other words, why it is adaptive for older parents to have daughters, not sons. That requires an ultimate evolutionary explanation.

As I explain in an earlier post, parental investment is much more crucial for the future reproductive success of sons than for that of daughters. Sons’ reproductive success largely hinges on the status and resources that they inherit from their parents, particularly, their fathers. This is why the presence of sons deters divorce and the departure of the father from the family. Sons therefore need parents to invest in them, to make sure that they inherit the status and the resources of the family.

In sharp contrast, daughters’ future reproductive success is largely determined by their youth and physical attractiveness. Once they are conceived with particular genes that influence their physical attractiveness, there is very little that parents can do to increase their daughters’ future reproductive success, beyond keeping them alive and healthy. There is absolutely nothing that parents can do to affect the progression of time that determines the daughters’ age, nor is there anything they can do after the conception to influence the daughters’ physical appearance (once again, beyond keeping them healthy).

The problem with older parents, of course, is that they are more likely to die sooner. If the parents die before the children reach sexual maturity, it will have a greater negative impact on sons’ future reproductive success than on daughters’. This may be one evolutionary, ultimate reason why older parents are more likely to have daughters. Parents may be evolutionarily designed to have more daughters when they are older, so that, when they die, they are less likely to leave sons who have not sexually matured. Being orphaned young is bad both for boys and girls, but it’s much worse for boys than for girls.


UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (13m) : I think this games over
beast (53m) : Eagles sure get a lot of fumbles on kickoffs
Mucky Tundra (58m) : This game looks too big for Washington
packerfanoutwest (4h) : that being said, The Ravens are the Browns
packerfanoutwest (4h) : Browns, Dolphins have longest AFC Championship droughts
packerfanoutwest (4h) : As of today, Cowboys have longest NFC Championship drought,
beast (15h) : Someone pointed out, with Raiders hiring Carroll, the division games between Carroll and Jim Harbaugh are back on (who can whine more games)
beast (20h) : I'm confused, Pete Carroll and Brian Schottenheimer? When Todd Monken, Joe Brady, Kellen Moore, Kliff Kingsbury and Zac Robinson are availab
Zero2Cool (22h) : Any reason I'm catching a shot here about my intelligence?
Martha Careful (25-Jan) : thank you Mucky for sticking up for me
Martha Careful (25-Jan) : some of those people are smarter than you zero. However Pete Carroll is not
Mucky Tundra (24-Jan) : Rude!
beast (24-Jan) : Martha? 😋
Zero2Cool (24-Jan) : Raiders hired someone from the elderly home.
dfosterf (24-Jan) : I'm going with a combination of the two.
beast (24-Jan) : Either the Cowboys have no idea what they're doing, or they're targeting their former OC, currently the Eagles OC
Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Fake news. Cowboys say no
Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Mystery candidate in the Cowboys head coaching search believed to be Packers ST Coordinator Rich Bisaccia.
beast (23-Jan) : Also why do both NYC teams have absolutely horrible OL for over a decade?
beast (23-Jan) : I wonder why the Jets always hire defensive coaches to be head coach
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Still HC positions available out there. I wonder if Hafley pops up for one
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Trent Baalke is out as the Jaguars GM.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Jeff Hafley would have been a better choice, fortunately they don't know that. Someone will figure that out next off season
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Aaron Glenn Planning To Take Jets HC Job
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Martha- C'est mon boulot! 😁
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you
wpr (22-Jan) : Z, glad you are feeling better.
wpr (22-Jan) : My son and D-I-L work for UM. It's a way to pick on them.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you. I rarely get sick, and even more rarely sick to the point I can't work.
wpr (22-Jan) : Beast- back to yesterday, I CAN say OSU your have been Michigan IF the odds of making the playoffs were more urgent.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Glad to hear you are feeling a bit better.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : I've been near death ill last several days, finally feel less dead and site issues.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : It is a big deal. This host is having issues. It's frustrating.
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : just kidding...it was down
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : you were blocked yesterday, due to a a recalcitrant demeanor yesterday in the penalty box for a recalcitrant demeanor
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Was that site shutdown on your end or mine? No big deal, just curious
beast (21-Jan) : That way teams like Indiana and SMU don't make the conference championships by simply avoiding all the other good teams in their own confere
beast (21-Jan) : Also, with these "Super Conferences" instead of a single conference champion, have 4 teams make a Conference playoffs.
beast (21-Jan) : Also in college football, is a bye week a good or bad thing?
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : The tournament format was fine. Seeding could use some work.
beast (21-Jan) : You can't assume Ohio State would of won the Michigan game...
beast (21-Jan) : Rankings were 1) Oregon 2) Georgia 3) Texas 4) Penn State 5) Notre Dame 6) Ohio State, none of the rest mattered
wpr (21-Jan) : Texas, ND and OSU would have been fighting for the final 2 slots.
wpr (21-Jan) : Oregon and Georgia were locks. Without the luxury of extra playoff berths, Ohios St would have been more focused on Michigan game.
wpr (21-Jan) : Zero, no. If there were only 4 teams Ohio State would have been one of them. Boise St and ASU would not have been selected.
Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : So that was 7 vs 8, that means in BCS they never would made it?
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : A great game. Give ND credit for coming back, although I am please with the outcome.
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : FG to make it academic
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : and there's the dagger
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooo 8 point game with 4 minutes to go!
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
Eagles
Recent Topics
3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / hardrocker950

23h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

25-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

18-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.