This was no simple task. Henry, 30, a former N.F.L. running back who played for three teams from 2001 to 2007, has nine children -- each by a different mother, some born as closely as a few months apart.
Reports of Henry's prolific procreating, generated by child-support disputes, have highlighted how futile the N.F.L.'s attempts can be at educating its players about making wise choices. The disputes have even eclipsed the attention he received after he was indicted on charges of cocaine trafficking.
Talk about a diverse genetic portfolio! So has there been a lot of social science done on professional athletes? Seems like an excellent "natural experiment"; take individuals of sub-average intelligence and impulse control, and give them top 1% income generating capacities for 1-10 years.
- Log in to post comments
I think your biases are showing - pro football players aren't selected for their "sub-average intelligence and impulse control", but rather their extraordinary natural athletic ability. If they are of sub-average intelligence, it's a side effect ;)
i don't think it's a side effect (i.e., causal connection). just the population they're sampled from. i know pro-athletes work hard, but in many cases it seems more about innate endowments than something like music or acting, where talent matters, but network, connections and people skills matter a lot too.
You may find that "sub-average intelligence" and "professional footballer" are correlated in the opposite direction - surely professional footballers suffer (potentially severe) cranial trauma far more often than the general population?
Also, to make it to the very top, you need not just talent, but also a lot of dedication and hard work. There's some genetic basis to that. OTOH, you're pretty much cut off from intellectual pursuits (or environments that reward / value intellectual achievements) from an early age.
So perhaps some quantities that tend to correlate in the general population (achievement, assiduity, wordsum, whatever) would show less correlation among top-level athletes?
So perhaps some quantities that tend to correlate in the general population (achievement, assiduity, wordsum, whatever) would show less correlation among top-level athletes?
wonderlic.
in any case, from what i know journeymen professional athletes aren't journeymen because of their limited investment in training. rather, they often train a lot more to compensate for their lack of innate talent. so don't think the primary issue is that high level athletics requires so much investment of time that people don't cultivate intellectual skills. in fact, the best natural athletes with awesome innate endowments are the ones who have the least need for training in the margins and probably have more leisure time than those who can barely stay in the pros.*
* this probably varies by sport. i would rate baseball as offering greater returns on skill and technique than football.
While it's true there is a lot of stereotyping here, there is a selection bias. Top athelets are the only group of college students not picked on the basis of academic performance (superficially they are, but in reality, no), so statistically there will already be a lowering of the average IQ. While there are some highly intellectual athelets (Moe Berg, anyone?) it is more common for people with both types of talent to persue their intellectual side for a career and their atheletic skills for recreation. Again a selection effect.
[and yes, on an evolutionary scale, for a male, reckless mating is a functioning reproduction strategy. Not pretty but it works]
In an era of easily available birth control and child support payments, pro athletes do have a large reproductive advantage. Women want to have children with them not only because of their extraordinary ability but because they'll get plenty of money. The overall effect may not be all that strong, though, because these guys are such a tiny percentage of the population.
You know, I sometimes think if I had a lot of money I would calculate how much of it I can spend on child support and breed with a few really hot women.
Going off on a tangent, does anyone know of any data that would let me compare intelligence (or a proxy) for athletes in different sports? Perhaps from some obscure country's Olympic representatives?
I have a theory that sprinters and (Olympic-style) weightlifters might be smart because those sports require the ability to recruit a lot of muscle fibers extremely quickly, and the kind of nervous system efficiency that requires could have more general cognitive benefits.
A 10th women impregnated by Travis Henry has now given birth to twins, bringing his total up to 11.
http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/03/12/after-birth-of-twins-travis-henry-no…
Also according to the wikipedia Travis Henry's wonderlic score was a 7... But this is seem a bit too low (<10 is indicative of basic literacy problems, avg is 21).