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
beast (5h) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game
packerfanoutwest (9h) : both games Watson missed, Packers won
Martha Careful (11h) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
Mucky Tundra (21h) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
buckeyepackfan (21h) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
buckeyepackfan (21h) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
Mucky Tundra (21h) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
Zero2Cool (21h) : Watson gonna be OK???
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th
beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (23-Dec) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (23-Dec) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
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
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
45m / GameDay Threads / bboystyle

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

7h / Random Babble / beast

12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23-Dec / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.