Are kids of teenage mothers dumber?

The creeps are wrong again.

Teenage motherhood has been associated with a wide variety of negative offspring outcomes including poorer cognitive development. In the context of limitations of previous research, this paper assesses the contemporary relevance of this finding. In this study we investigate the long-term cognitive status (IQ) among 21 year adult offspring born to teenage parents using the Mater University Study of Pregnancy- a prospective birth cohort study, which recruited all pregnant mothers attending a large obstetrical hospital in Brisbane, Australia, from 1981 to 1983. The analyses were restricted to a sub-sample of 2643 mother-offspring pair. Offspring IQ was measured using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test at 21 year. Parental age was reported at first clinic visit. Offspring born to teenage mothers (<20 years) have -3.0 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): -4.3, -1.8) points lower IQ compared to children born to mothers ≥20 years and were more likely to have a low IQ (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.7; 95% CI: 1.3, 2.3). Adjustment for a range of confounding and mediating factors including parental socioeconomic status, maternal IQ, maternal smoking and binge drinking in pregnancy, birthweight, breastfeeding and parenting style attenuates the association, though the effect remains statistically significant (-1.4 IQ points; 95% CI: -2.8,-0.1). Similarly the risk of offspring having low IQ remained marginally significantly higher in those born to teenage mothers (OR 1.3; 95% CI: 1.0, 1.9).

In contrast, teenage fatherhood is not associated with adult offspring IQ, when adjusted for maternal age. Although the reduction in IQ is quantitatively small, it is indicative of neurodevelopmental disadvantage experienced by the young adult offspring of teenage mothers. Our results suggest that public policy initiatives should be targeted not only at delaying childbearing in the population but also at supporting early life condition of children born to teenage mothers to minimize the risk for disadvantageous outcomes of the next generation.

 The small but significant decrease in offspring IQ combined with other challenges often faced by children of teenage mothers may contribute to increased risk of poor educational performance and intergenerational transfer of psychosocial and health disadvantage. 

aka poor fitness among r-types

corroborates forensics in the history of anglos

Their bodies haven’t finished developing.

Link: Is the Japanese IQ advantage based on diet?

It would be Omega 3, not 6.

I vaguely recollect reading about a study I can’t find, that said when children have higher omega 3, their IQ is boosted but if the ratio is tilted to higher omega 6, it depresses IQ. I think it was a study on breast milk?

One of the many reasons maternal IQ is so important.

A father’s health is important prior to and at conception.

I’d like a follow-up study on white diets because ours is almost wholly omega 6.

Omega 3 is naturally found in breast milk. More important than saving for college.
I understand that some mothers can’t breastfeed but they should try.
Breastfeeding and Other Early Influencers on Children’s IQ
I believe the study was about one of these?
“Was it the breast milk? Some studies are starting to focus on the nutrients, such as the fatty acids docosahexaenoicacid (DHA) and arachidonic acid (ARA), present in breast milk, but there’s no solid evidence that these are responsible for enhancing neural connections or promoting development of cognitive regions of the brain.”

There’s no solid evidence that smoking one cigarette causes lung cancer, either.

Maternal IQ fact supported by genetics

A lot of bitter old men have been butthurt over this. Lemme explain.
Hey, you wanted genetic studies of IQ, this is part of HBD. If you only want ones that make men look good, you aren’t being scientific. Become a feminist and quit crying because facts don’t support your feels.

eric ooh aah umm uhuh play dumb smile laugh evil grin

When has the manosphere ever distorted scientific findings?

It’s been known for decades that child IQ is usually higher correlated with maternal IQ. This isn’t one study’s opinion. It’s hundred of thousands of datapoints. It’s a fact, or as close to one as child psychology gets.

The cerebral cortex is also highly implicated in what we think of as higher functions and especially IQ measures (broadly, all types of IQ). There are also racial differences, however, the findings are more within-family e.g. they don’t differ as much between men/women as you’d expect.

There are different reasons given for this maternal IQ jump but since it’s psychology, they don’t use genetic, they seek social explanations primarily. This study is important because it plugs that gap. Previously, it was considered as part of the tender years hypothesis, which that article mentions, i.e. that women are usually primary caregiver, hence raise the IQ of the child simply with their presence. Were that the case, men could boost their contributions simply by becoming stay at home fathers or (gasp) being a co-parent (the technical term for just sticking around, being with their family) of their own spawn.

This study really makes the abandoning fathers look atrocious. As they deserve. Some of the non-fathers are getting butthurt that they can’t blame Mommy for everything, which I won’t even touch as a topic because that requires a professional by the hour.

As it is, the harder science always wins. There isn’t the social science window for BS here, so that’s pretty much out of the window. That’s why they’re so embittered, their stupidity is misreading it and they can’t dance around it with lies.

What the study says: IQ is genetically matrilineal, supporting social findings. All of them.

What the study does NOT say: men are stupid.

crying laughter lmao

But it’s amazing how it brings the stupid ones out.

These guys are often trying to lecture their fellow dunces on IQ as if they understand it, like misinterpreting what an average is (stats 101) or falsely claiming “men” are higher in IQ (if you took the average man off the street, he’s likelier to be a retard, stop embarrassing yourselves).

They’re faux intellectuals, so I’m enjoying writing this up. I really trigger them.

Due to the matrilineal nature of genetics (women conceive and grow the foetus, duh) and the nature of genetics itself (the X chromosome contains more material, a fact I have previously mentioned) everyone inherits more cortical genetic instruction from their mother’s side, possibly all (due to the so factual it’s directly manipulable deactivation this study discusses). Women also give birth and we all know infant brain size can only grow as large as the female can pass. It’s all female, all the way up!

Men don’t need to be at the epicentre of everything – ESPECIALLY CHILDBIRTH.

omg really wtf go away no audrey

Although watching them struggle to take credit for this one thing that’s ours, that’s truly feminine, has been an exercise in patience.

I can’t believe they’re questioning so much reality. Those guys are not redpills.
What, do men conceive? Give birth? Raise their kids? I wish on that last one. Truly, I do.

It’s a very precise study about the nature of intelligence’s inheritance. Not what the organism does with it. Nor does it suggest how intellect potentiates, develops or who ‘has’ more. Intellect isn’t something you have, as these idiots claim with their fake G ratings (childhood scores do not count as an adult, I repeat, childhood scores do not count as an adult) but intelligence is something you do, something you use. Not a trophy you can waggle in someone’s face like a MENSA card, it is more fluid and never something to rest on. Those are a faux appeal to authority anyway, only useful to teachers and employers. They want to get all the status of doing something, but they’re lazy. So they brag about a single pop quiz, which is all most IQ tests are. Which sex, when married with kids, works more total hours per week? Clue: not the one who eschews the bulk of childcare and household duties and spends the bulk of their office time goofing off online. It’s the one that tries to have it all.

This is a very direct finding about a genetic sequence, how it activates and how much cellular volume directly results.

No, it isn’t up for debate. It is the opposite of personal, it’s completely objective. This isn’t political at all because we all grew inside a woman, whether you unconsciously hate her or not. The study said nothing about female children distinct from males, it didn’t study that. Talk about a red herring, those who dare claim such simply dumb. Liars to boot, derailing onto something no one mentions, but let’s stick with what is factually obvious.

Welcome to science, not scientism. We don’t give a flying fuck about your feelings of emasculation.

What you inherit from your mother doesn’t make you less of a man, mothers are no less human as implied, and intelligence is not a ‘male’ thing how ever many fake quotes you post beside Einstein’s face.

If you think that makes me sexist, when all I did was explain, please get your head examined. Seriously.

Study shows older mothers make smarter babies

Research says children of older mothers are smarter, taller, and stronger

I don’t think this means what people think it does.

Considering IQ is at least mostly genetic (like, 70% charitably), and child IQ is based on the maternal IQ (not paternal).
Considering high IQ women marry and have children later (and always have done, historically, the average age of marriage in fact used to be around 25, earlier was reckless from immaturity, later was also fine hence remarriages were also allowed).
Considering they invest more money and time into their children, which accounts for the non-genetic factors to boot.
I think those factors all combine that there’s a third variable. Innate maternal IQ.

The age isn’t causing the intelligence in mothers to pop into existence out of nowhere.

Those women are intelligent to begin with, they delayed the gratification of family until they could support one and we’re seeing those women, responsible women, being compared with the spawn of the irresponsible and stupid.
Older mothers (very old, not, like, 30) either have very healthy babies or very sickly ones, it isn’t clear-cut always bad or always good. Either there are serious problems (a bad pregnancy, often ending in miscarriage) or there aren’t (a good one, biologically the same as a younger woman). Underage girls or young women also have a higher rate of miscarriage (and death) and disease/defects, although this is almost never mentioned. Nature evolved this for good reason, you can’t do things until their time and the reproductive system needs to stabilize hence this result shouldn’t be a surprising correlate. Your ovaries don’t start misfiring suddenly at an arbitrary age (although men, from the way they constantly produce sperm, DO have this high-mutation problem affecting the health and longevity of kids). The males of the manosphere, where you won’t see these studies covered because they’re bluepill pussies, have a lot of ridiculous notions of the female reproductive anatomy and function (e.g. they still talk about hymens like a seal on a tin can and making women bleed as a good thing). They can’t explain this stuff, in part because they think it’s “not their issue/problem”, “not science” and just “ew gross blood n stuff”, while expecting to be taken seriously as adults with internet access on reproductive topics. Naturally, if we try to educate them (you should be paying for this information), they’ll ignore you or call you wrong, because you ‘re a woman. Why would you know how a woman’s body works? That’s just silly.

oh no oh dear hides facepalm double

It isn’t as if I’m trying to give them advice on ED, is it? (Although many of them are porn addicts, the true cause of ED). Everyone has their subjects. Random myths about ovaries and scare-mongering about fertility (while telling men to have kids while on Death’s door) are unhelpful. These people dole out dangerous advice to men (life-ruining, if you look at the cost of raising a special needs child) and have such a lack of class they mock women for their fertility problems and blame them for having a medical condition like PCOS (as if men don’t have fertility problems, when men have more fertility problems in total, mostly impotence issues and getting it up caused/exacerbated by porn use).

On the Eugenic Problem aka Idiocracy Problem.

If you want smart people to have children, they aren’t going to do it at age 18, it isn’t our way and never has been, so you’d better get used to later pregnancies. You can’t shame people into ignoring biology, like the feminists pushing fat as sexy. People always left it ‘late’ compared to the modern welfare baby at 15 ‘standard’. It isn’t too late until you can’t have any or if you refuse to have kids and become a genetic suicide.