Not having children to save money

[FallenApple]

OK, all that means is that it is constant factor. If you are tall, your odds across the board will go up - when young or old. But you chances will still be reduced as a function of age.


In other words:
Your "Looks" quotient is inversely correlated with your age, while height as a constant. Simplistically like this:
L ~ 1/a + h

where
L= Looks (good)
a = age
h = height

Regardless of whether h is large or small, L will fall of as a rises. A large h simply means your L started higher.

Yes, but this decrease is compensated for by money.

Mating Market Value=L +M

where M is money. So while L falls, M goes up. And only a small part of L falls.

L=1/a + h +s+d

where a is age, h is height, s is facial symmetry, and d is sexual dimorphism of the face. (strong jawline, etc)

So only 1/4 of the looks component falls.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, but this decrease is compensated for by money.

Somewhat compensated for by money.

For women looking to start a family, I'll wager that a compatible partner for raising a family (such as someone in the same phase of life) is a far bigger factor than looks or money.

I think the statistics will bear me out. I'll bet that an age difference of less than x years will show as a bigger factor in families with children than good looks or increased money.

 

[FallenApple]

Somewhat compensated for by money.

For women looking to start a family, I'll wager that a compatible partner for raising a family (such as someone in the same phase of life) is a far bigger factor than looks or money.

I think the statistics will bear me out. I'll bet that an age difference of less than x years will show as a bigger factor in families with children than good looks or increased money.

The statistics are here. A man's market value reaches its highest at an older age.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/08/online-dating-out-of-your-league/567083/

 

[DaveC426913]

Dating is not starting a family.
This is a straw man.

 

[FallenApple]

Dating is not starting a family.
This is a straw man.

Why do people date?

 

[DaveC426913]

Why do people date?

Women date well after child-bearing years - indeed, until death.
Women date who have no intention of having children even while fertile.
Thus: many reasons, only one of which is to have babies

 

[FallenApple]

Women date well after child-bearing years.
Women date who have no intention of having children.
Thus: many reasons, only one of which is to have babies

There are strong evolutionary reasons why females prefer males with resources. The pregnant females are basically incapacitated during pregnancy and the children would be defenseless at young age. This is especially so during early human evolution where the environment was much less forgiving than modern societies.

Its not like the psychological preferences for a wealthy man just switch off after childbirth. Just like how our desire to eat high caloric foods don't switch off after we eat enough to survive. Evolutionary artifacts.

Furthermore, it is even more counterintuitive for the desire for a wealthy man to suddenly switch on after a woman's childrearing years, when it counts the least, evolutionary speaking.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think you'll find that the statistics bear me out.

The frequency of having a first child will drop off rapidly as a function of paternal age.

 

[FallenApple]

I think you'll find that the statistics bear me out.

The frequency of having a first child will drop off rapidly as a function of paternal age.

Maybe the confounding variable here is the fact that older men, if failed to have children at an earlier age, are simply not desirable enough to mate regardless. Has there been studies controlling for this potential confounder?

If a desirable man so chooses to delay having children, would his odds rapidly go down just because he aged?

A proper study would only look at the subpopulation of males that are highly desirable/and or acceptable in physical appearance and merely decided to attempt to have children later.

 

[Svein]

For a chilling story about that decision, try to find and read the old SF story "The Marching Morons" by C. M. Kornbluth.

 

[DaveC426913]

If a desirable man so chooses to delay having children, would his odds rapidly go down just because he aged?

Yes. As witnessed by the preponderance of families where the parents are of similar ages. I'm certain you will find a statistically strong downward trend of paternal-age-at-first-child.

 

[FallenApple]

Yes. As witnessed by the preponderance of families where the parents are of similar ages. I'm certain you will find a statistically strong downward trend of paternal-age-at-first-child.

This doesn't prove that waiting has a detrimental effect. Those that don't have children early could have been weeded out of the selection process early. Entirely plausible.

 

[DaveC426913]

This doesn't prove that waiting has a detrimental effect. Those that don't have children early could have been weeded out of the selection process early. Entirely plausible.

It does.

It demonstrates that what might be a plausible scenario is not, in reality, a common or likely scenario.
IOW, your chances will be slim.

 

[FallenApple]

It does.

It demonstrates that what might be a plausible scenario is not, in reality, a common or likely scenario.
IOW, your chances will be slim.

correlation doesn't imply causation. comeon, we all know that. You can't just interpret the data in aggregate without any theoretical explanation.

 

[DaveC426913]

correlation doesn't imply causation. comeon, we all know that. You can't just take the data in aggregate without any theoretical explanation.

It has nothing to do with correlation or causation.
Statistics will simply show what is happening - regardless of why.

 

[FallenApple]

It has nothing to do with correlation or causation.
Statistics will simply show what is happening - regardless of why.

But it does. Here's an example. If we notice that ice-cream sales go up whenever there are shark attacks, does that mean we should ban ice cream merchants? Of course not. The causal driver is the fact that it's summer.

Unless there is strong theoretical reason why the correlation you cited is necessary due to age, then it could entirely just be a spurious relationship.

 

[DaveC426913]

But it does. Here's an example. If we notice that ice-cream sales go up whenever there are shark attacks, does that mean we should ban ice cream merchants? Of course not. The causal driver is the fact that it's summer.

Unless there is strong theoretical reason why the correlation you cited is necessary due to age, then it could entirely just be a spurious relationship.

Your example is not analogous. It is fact that the start of families does drop off as age advances. We know why this is - both men and women do get less fertile as they age. So there's no mystery there.

That the frequency of starting a family drops off as a function of age is simply raw data. It does taper from maximum down to zero with age.

And it is directly germane to your plan.
If you propose to be of a certain advanced age, it can be shown that, statistically, your chances are greatly diminished (for possibly many reasons, but that one is certainly a major player).

My suggestion that the behavior of women wishing to start a family affect this rate is indeed conjecture. But it's just icing on the cake. The foundation of the connection between new families and parental age is irrefutable.

 

[FallenApple]

If starting a family drops off as a function of age, that is simply raw data.

And it is directly germane to your plan.
If you propose to be of a certain advanced age, it can be directly shown that your chances are greatly diminished.

If you can think of a confounding factor that might show another cause for first-child frequency to drop off with advancing age, be my guest.

I already did think of another confounding factor. Male desirability. Is it really surprising that many men who had a hard time getting a girlfriend when they are young continue to have a hard time when they are older? There are certain fixed biological traits that are selected for. It's not like those traits would just pop up when they are older. Also, people have a strong desire for relationships. Put two and two together and you have a lot of desirable men and desirable women getting together to have children. It makes sense mathematically.

Tell me, why on Earth would a handsome and rich, albeit older man have lower mating value than a younger less attractive man with no money simply because he's of similar age? The selection process I stated makes sense due to the fact that resources were so vital to a child's survival during early human evolution, that there would be selection for the monetary factor. Furthermore, it also make sense that women would select for good looking genes so as the child would be successful in mating opportunities. Look up Ronald Fisher's Sexy Son hypothesis.

 

[DaveC426913]

I already did think of another confounding factor. Male desirability. Is it really surprising that many men who had a hard time getting a girlfriend when they are young continue to have a hard time when they are older? There are certain fixed biological traits that are selected for. It's not like those traits would just pop up when they are older. Also, people have a strong desire for relationships. Put two and two together and you have a lot of desirable men and desirable women getting together to have children. It makes sense mathematically.

Your task - to refute the data I'm asserting - would be to show that the statistically demonstrable drop off of new families as the parents age is not directly due to aging.

Otherwise, how do you account for the decrease of new families as a function of age?

Tell me, why on Earth would a handsome and rich, albeit older man have lower mating value than a younger less attractive man with no money simply because he's of similar age? The selection process I stated makes sense due to the fact that resources were so vital to a child's survival during early human evolution, that there would be selection for the monetary factor.

And yet, we don't see a preponderance of younger mothers with significantly older husbands. They exist, but they are in the minority. The lion's share of new families are not like this. Showing that
1] factors such as wealth or good looks, while a factor, are not the major factor, and
2] that they make their presence felt across the spectrum, not correlated with age.

 

[FallenApple]

Your example is not analogous. It is fact that the start of families does drop off as age advances. We know why this is - both men and women do get less fertile as they age. So there's no mystery there.

That the frequency of starting a family drops off as a function of age is simply raw data. It does taper from maximum down to zero with age.

And it is directly germane to your plan.
If you propose to be of a certain advanced age, it can be shown that, statistically, your chances are greatly diminished (for possibly many reasons, but that one is certainly a major player).

My suggestion that the behavior of women wishing to start a family affect this rate is indeed conjecture. But it's just icing on the cake. The foundation of the connection between new families and parental age is irrefutable.

Male fertility doesn't drop off nearly as fast as female fertility. Which is why there is an observed effect of stable male desirably on dating websites(which are heavily looks based btw) across wide age ranges but there is a sharp spike in female desirability concentrated at a narrow age range.

 

[DaveC426913]

Male fertility doesn't drop off nearly as fast as female fertility.

Agree. Which is where the second factor comes in: that you don't find a lot of sixty year old men starting families with 35 year old women.

This is the part where I am conjecturing: that women wishing to start new families choose to disqualify men who - while still fertile - are still considered too old to start a family with. Again, it happens, it's just much less likely.

Which is why there is an observed effect of stable male desirably on dating websites(which are heavily looks based btw) across wide age ranges but there is a sharp spike in female desirability concentrated at a narrow age range.

Again: dating is not starting a family.
There are many reasons to date that have nothing to do with starting a family.

 

[FallenApple]

Your task - to refute the data I'm asserting - would be to show that the statistically demonstrable drop off of new families as the parents age is not directly due to aging.

Otherwise, how do you account for the decrease of new families as a function of age?And yet, we don't see a preponderance of younger mothers with significantly older husbands. They exist, but they are in the minority. The lion's share of new families are not like this. Showing that
1] factors such as wealth or good looks, while a factor, are not the major factor, and
2] that they make their presence felt across the spectrum, not correlated with age.

We don't see the preponderance because people match up younger than not. A woman is not likely to leave a man if he was desirable and young.

Like I said. Undesirable men are often undesirable because of certain fixed biological traits. But that doesn't mean if a physically desirable male waits, he would suffer the same fate.

 

[FallenApple]

We don't see the preponderance because people match up younger than not. A woman is not likely to leave a man if he was desirable and young.

Like I said. Undesirable men are often undesirable because of certain fixed biological traits. This can easily explain the preponderance.

But that doesn't mean if a physically desirable male waits, he would suffer the same fate. That is a huge factor that needs to be taken into account .

 

[DaveC426913]

We don't see the preponderance because people match up younger than not. A woman is not likely to leave a man if he was desirable and young.

Thus, dramatically reducing your overall chances if you are an older man.

Like I said. Undesirable men are often undesirable because of certain fixed biological traits. But that doesn't mean if a physically desirable male waits, he would suffer the same fate.

As I said, being a more attractive man will certainly increase your odds - but linearly. It won't change the fact that, as you age, your chances (though starting higher) will drop off at a similar rate.

G ~1/a +h +l
where l is looks

l is a constant - it adds to the value, but does not affect the slope of the curve.

(I'm not proposing this as an actual formula of course, simply showing looks as a constant, while age is an inverse variable)

 

[DaveC426913]

But that doesn't mean if a physically desirable male waits, he would suffer the same fate. That is a huge factor that needs to be taken into account .

If it were huge, it would show up in the data as an increase in starting families with aging fathers. And that's not what we see.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, but putting a large quantity to it - as implied by "huge" - is implying that you are hugely good-looking.

 

[FallenApple]

Thus, dramatically reducing your overall chances if you are an older man.As I said, being a more attractive man will certainly increase your odds - but linearly. It won't change the fact that, as you age, your chances (though starting higher) will drop off at a similar rate.

G ~1/a +h +l
where l is looks

l is a constant - it adds to the value, but does not affect the slope of the curve.

(I'm not proposing this as an actual formula of course, simply showing looks as a constant, while age is an inverse variable)

Just think George Clooney. I'm willing to bet that if he were single and not famous, he would still get lots of female attention based off his looks and voice. Is his value less than if he were younger? of course. But is a disqualifer? I doubt it. Constants are constants, but they are important.

 

[FallenApple]

If it were huge, it would show up in the data as an increase in starting families with aging fathers. And that's not what we see.

How often are males highly physically desirable? how often do men not mate early because they are physically undesirable? That is the real question.

 

[DaveC426913]

Just think George Clooney. I'm willing to bet that if he were single and not famous, he would still get lots of female attention based off his looks and voice. Is his value less than if he were younger? of course. But is a disqualifer? I doubt it. Constants are constants, but they are important.

Indeed and if you had the trifecta of the nigh-perfect George - rich, famous and fabulously good-looking - then it goes without saying that this thread would have been about 54 posts shorter.

 

[FallenApple]

Agree. Which is where the second factor comes in: that you don't find a lot of sixty year old men starting families with 35 year old women.

This is the part where I am conjecturing: that women wishing to start new families choose to disqualify men who - while still fertile - are still considered too old to start a family with. Again, it happens, it's just much less likely.

My conjecture is that we don't observe it because those men couldn't mate younger in the first place due to some underlying flaw that made them undesirable in the first place.

 

[DaveC426913]

My conjecture is that we don't observe it because those men couldn't mate younger in the first place due to some underlying flaw that made them undesirable in the first place.

No. That would assume some statistically very unlikely correlation that would be very difficult to justify.

You're talking about "those" men". You can't just single out a portion of a distribution graph and say "OK, these data points here are caused by this other factor not due to the simple correlation already observed."