- Liittynyt
- 20.4.2002
- Viestejä
- 712
Näinhän se yksi japanilaistutkimus väitti. Jos jollakin on yliopiston kautta lehtiä käytössä niin koko artikkeli on lehdessä Journal of Research in Personality 2003 elokuun numerossa.
En viitsi piratisoida artikkelia joten laitan tähän vain tiivistelmän:
Why productivity fades with age: The crime–genius connection
"The biographies of 280 scientists indicate that the distribution of their age at the time of their greatest scientific contributions in their careers (age–genius curve) is similar to the age distribution of criminals (age–crime curve). The age–genius curves among jazz musicians, painters and authors are also similar to the age–crime curve. Further, marriage has a strong desistance effect on both crime and genius. I argue that this is because both crime and genius stem from men's evolved psychological mechanism which compels them to be highly competitive in early adulthood but "turns off" when they get married and have children. Fluctuating levels of testosterone, which decreases when men get married and have children, can provide the biochemical microfoundation for this psychological mechanism. If crime and genius have the same underlying cause, then it is unlikely that social control theory (or any other theory specific to criminal behavior) can explain why men commit crimes and why they desist."
Tässä linkki yhteen uutiseen ja pari lainausta artikkelista:
"A person who has not made his great contribution to science before the age of thirty will never do so.
Albert Einstein (Brodetsky, 1942, p. 699)"
"Nearly a quarter (23.4%) of all married scientists make their greatest contributions, and thus ‘‘desist,’’ within five years after their marriage. The mean delay (the difference between their marriage and their peak) is mere 2.6 years; the median is 3.0 years. It, therefore, appears that scientists rather quickly desist after their marriage, while unmarried scientists continue to make great scientific contributions later in their lives. Similarly, Hargens, McCann, and Reskin's (1978) study demonstrates that childless research chemists are more productive than those with children."
Ja vasta-argumentti muiden selittävien tekijöiden vaikutukselle:
"Contemporary readers might suggest that unmarried scientists continue to make scientific contributions much later in their lives because they have more time to devote to their careers. Unmarried, and therefore childless, scientists do not have to spend time taking care of their children, driving them back and forth between their soccer practices and ballet lessons, or doing half of the household chores, and that's why unmarried scientists can continue making great contributions whereas married scientists must desist. This is precisely Hargens et al.'s (1978) interpretation of the negative correlation between parenthood and productivity among research chemists. I would remind the readers, however, that almost all the scientists in my sample lived in the 18th and 19th century, when married men made very little contribution in the domestic sphere and their wives did not have their own careers. Hargens et al.'s data come from 1969 and 1970, when this was probably still true to a large extent. I would, therefore, contend that, if anything, married scientists probably had more (rather than less) time to devote to science, because they had someone to take care of their domestic needs at all times."
Kyllähän tämäkin on oikeastaan selvää pässinlihaa että kun tulee perhettä niin ei enää tarvitse kilpailla naaraista osoittamalla kuntoisuuttaan erilaisissa asioissa.
En viitsi piratisoida artikkelia joten laitan tähän vain tiivistelmän:
Why productivity fades with age: The crime–genius connection
"The biographies of 280 scientists indicate that the distribution of their age at the time of their greatest scientific contributions in their careers (age–genius curve) is similar to the age distribution of criminals (age–crime curve). The age–genius curves among jazz musicians, painters and authors are also similar to the age–crime curve. Further, marriage has a strong desistance effect on both crime and genius. I argue that this is because both crime and genius stem from men's evolved psychological mechanism which compels them to be highly competitive in early adulthood but "turns off" when they get married and have children. Fluctuating levels of testosterone, which decreases when men get married and have children, can provide the biochemical microfoundation for this psychological mechanism. If crime and genius have the same underlying cause, then it is unlikely that social control theory (or any other theory specific to criminal behavior) can explain why men commit crimes and why they desist."
Tässä linkki yhteen uutiseen ja pari lainausta artikkelista:
"A person who has not made his great contribution to science before the age of thirty will never do so.
Albert Einstein (Brodetsky, 1942, p. 699)"
"Nearly a quarter (23.4%) of all married scientists make their greatest contributions, and thus ‘‘desist,’’ within five years after their marriage. The mean delay (the difference between their marriage and their peak) is mere 2.6 years; the median is 3.0 years. It, therefore, appears that scientists rather quickly desist after their marriage, while unmarried scientists continue to make great scientific contributions later in their lives. Similarly, Hargens, McCann, and Reskin's (1978) study demonstrates that childless research chemists are more productive than those with children."
Ja vasta-argumentti muiden selittävien tekijöiden vaikutukselle:
"Contemporary readers might suggest that unmarried scientists continue to make scientific contributions much later in their lives because they have more time to devote to their careers. Unmarried, and therefore childless, scientists do not have to spend time taking care of their children, driving them back and forth between their soccer practices and ballet lessons, or doing half of the household chores, and that's why unmarried scientists can continue making great contributions whereas married scientists must desist. This is precisely Hargens et al.'s (1978) interpretation of the negative correlation between parenthood and productivity among research chemists. I would remind the readers, however, that almost all the scientists in my sample lived in the 18th and 19th century, when married men made very little contribution in the domestic sphere and their wives did not have their own careers. Hargens et al.'s data come from 1969 and 1970, when this was probably still true to a large extent. I would, therefore, contend that, if anything, married scientists probably had more (rather than less) time to devote to science, because they had someone to take care of their domestic needs at all times."
Kyllähän tämäkin on oikeastaan selvää pässinlihaa että kun tulee perhettä niin ei enää tarvitse kilpailla naaraista osoittamalla kuntoisuuttaan erilaisissa asioissa.
