I've noticed that when I read the obituaries of prominent people in New York Times, I always check the last paragraph to see how many grandchildren they have. The replacement rate would be four, and lots of high-achieving people die without getting to that number.
On the other hand, I just noticed that golfer Jack Nicklaus (who is not dead, by the way -- his name just comes up whenever there's a major championship), whose career record of 18 major championships is looking more secure each month (Tiger has been stuck on 14 for just under three years), has 21 grandchildren.
Nicklaus, who was born in 1940, had six children, and his children have averaged 3.5 kids each, which is a lot for a celebrity's kids these days. (I suspect that bequests from Grandpa Jack have helped his offspring go forth and multiply.)
Nicklaus is an example of high all-around competence. For one thing, he was a fat white 5'10" kid who could dunk a basketball. He's also one of very few celebrities to lose a large amount of weight for cosmetic purposes in mid-career without hurting performance.
I'm not sure that I'd want to have Jack Nicklaus as my next door neighbor. (I suspect he would roll his eyes in a marked manner at my lawn care efforts.) But, in case of, say, alien invasion, I would be glad that there were more rather than fewer copies of his genes floating around in the human race.
It might be interesting for somebody to go through obituaries of high achievers and build a database of numbers of children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren.
21 grandchildren is peanuts when you're this woman:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.glancyobits2.info/glancyobits3_008.htm
She is not atypical of her sect.
Lenin - ZERO
ReplyDeleteMarx - ZERO (4 adult children,including 1 illegitimate, 0 surviving grandchildren beyond childhood)
Hitler - ZERO (though there is rumor of 1 illegitimate in the U.S.)
George Washington - ZERO
Newton - ZERO
Mozart ZERO (2 surviving children who didn't have any children)
It seems that truly evil or truly great people don't leave progeny.
"For one thing, he was a fat white 5'10" kid who could dunk a basketball."
ReplyDeleteNo way. Does proof exist?
I've always wondered, are there any descendants of our early Presidents left? How about of the signers of the Declaration? Surely there's got to be an Adams or two somewhere.
ReplyDeleteThe Romney's up to ten. They seem like nice intelligent people.
ReplyDeleteDuncan Idaho
"It might be interesting for somebody to go through obituaries of high achievers and build a database of numbers of children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren."
ReplyDeleteWouldn't this be a good project for Steve Sailer since he's not keeping his lawn?
"I suspect that bequests from Grandpa Jack have helped his offspring go forth and multiply."
ReplyDeleteThey usually use that money to go forth to Paris and Bora Bora.
Self-made billionaire Jon Huntsman, Sr. - the father of 11th tier presidential candidate Jon, Jr. - has 9 children and 54 biological grandchildren, plus 2 more adopted by Jr. (probably to aid his political career) - so he has overshot the replacement rate 13.5 fold.
To have lots of children, then to have those children all have lots of children, is pretty damn rare. I suspect if you're a rich guy who wants lots of grandchildren there are ways to cataylze the process financially - by basing your bequeaths on the number of grandchildren produced rather than dividing equally amongst each child. That gets you through to at least the 3rd generation.
I don't remember reading that Jack could dunk. I do know he had a pretty accurate outside jumper.
ReplyDeleteI've always held JN in high esteem. His focus was incredible. I remember his saying he learned early that burnout was a threat around every corner so he learned it was best to use the walk to his ball to allow himself to think of other things, like taking in the beauty of the course. During the time it took to walk from his drive to his second shot, he practiced thinking of something other than the next shot. Then, at some predetermined distance from the ball, he returned his focus entirely to the shot at hand.
He also learned that his family was the source of his contentment in golf. If his family life was threatened, he wasn't able to enjoy golf so he cultivated a balanced life. That balance kept his performance in golf at a high level. The minor tournaments were dropped; the majors were his focus.
Other than losing that weight (he admitted he did that not only because he realized that being overweight would eventually affect his golf performance but also because it bothered him that people saw him as a villain), Jack didn't try to be someone he wasn't.
If I had to list a cultural icon that belongs on a Norman Rockwell cover, it would be Nicklaus.
Steve, you don't really believe Nicklaus could dunk, do you? I played 25 years of serious pick-up b-ball and never saw a white kid under 6'1" dunk. And by the way, help to the kids doesn't come by way of "bequests." That term is limited to at-death transfers. Ever hear of a family corporation?
ReplyDeleteHighly successful people are often too busy working for their success to properly raise kids. I submit if you're interested in keeping their genes in the gene pool, it's more practical to see how many nieces and nephews they have. If I follow the concept of regression to the mean, their siblings should be equally marvellous genetic sources as their children.
ReplyDeleteActually, let me take this opportunity to check whether I do follow the concept of regression to the mean. Is the idea that: Genetic characteristics are determined by both additive and interactive effects between genes. Say we're talking about height. There are 100 genes with an allelle that gives you an extra half inch. But certain pairs of genes also have synergy, such that if you have the tall allelle on both of them, you get a bonus extra inch. Someone way out in the tail probably benefits from both additive and interaction effects. So even if a pair of really tall people marry each other, their kids will not be as far out in the tail as they are. This is because, in expectation, their kids will get genes with the same additive effect as the parents, but most of the interactive effect between genes will be lost, unless the parents happen to be getting their interactive boost from the same or compatible pairs of genes. Is this correct?
If so, then it doesn't matter whether highly successful people have nieces or grandchildren. It's not like they have some super special allelle that will be weeded out if they fail to reproduce. They just have a super special combination of allelles, that wouldn't make it intact to the next generation anyway.
Achievement/priority #1 for a man should be procreation (which, after all, is the real 1st commandment of Genesis). The rest is gravy.
ReplyDeleteOT
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/opinion/17brooks.html?_r=1&smid=fb-nytimes&WT.mc_id=OP-SM-E-FB-SM-LIN-WIj-061711-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click
--------
James Johnson is a bad guy but would they all be piling up on him if he were black, Hispanic, a woman, a gay, Jewish?
No, he's a straight white male of wasp stock, so a good PC target.
Yes, he's scum but there seems to be an element of 'who, whom' here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/opinion/17brooks.html?_r=1&smid=fb-nytimes&WT.mc_id=OP-SM-E-FB-SM-LIN-WIj-061711-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click
ReplyDeleteBrooks is not being honest when he writes:
"The Fannie Mae scandal has gotten relatively little media attention because many of the participants are still powerful, admired and well connected."
They may be powerfu, admired, and well-connected IN GOVERNMENT, but aren' tthe media supposed to independent and speak truth to power?
The truth Brooks dares not speak is big media are mostly owned by liberal Jews who watch out for their buddies in government.
We don't have a free press but a free-support press for liberal government/causes.
My maternal grandparents, Richard & Jennie Collins, had 12 children, 50 grandchildren, and are up to 200+ great-grandchildren by now.
ReplyDeleteI've always wondered, are there any descendants of our early Presidents left? How about of the signers of the Declaration? Surely there's got to be an Adams or two somewhere.
ReplyDeleteWashington: almost certainly sterile, as noted above.
Adams: Still has descendants living. Check out the Adams Family wikipedia page.
Jefferson: Enough living descendants to have a family association.
And so on.
My favorite interesting factoid: John Tyler, 10th President (1841-1845) still has two living grandsons today. Grandsons, not "great-" or more.
Look at recent Presidential candidates:
ReplyDeleteKerry has two daughters but no grandchildren.
Gore has four children and three grandchildren.
Clinton has no grand children.
Dole has one daugher but no grandchildren.
It seems that only the Bushes has grandchildren.
I have actually done this project, sort of, and it was heartening.
ReplyDeleteWhat I did was, look at the Bios of the Forbes 500 richest persons list for the number of kids they had and took an average. The average was definitely above three. Very few are childless and a not-insignificant number have something like five or six children.
And what's more, these individuals are living individuals, mostly men. That means they have not necessarily completed their fertility yet. And further still, since they are very well off, the survival, health and life expectancy of their children should be well above average.
Correction, that was the Forbes 400 Richest Americans and the Forbes list of world billionaires.
ReplyDeleteBoth in the US and globally the ultra wealthy are notably fertile.
"most of the interactive effect between genes will be lost, unless the parents happen to be getting their interactive boost from the same or compatible pairs of genes"
ReplyDeleteDog breeders have recognized this for centuries (even if they did not understand the exact reasons for it), which is why they have long practiced inbreeding to preserve desired traits. This is true not only for physical appearance, but also for many of the traits valued in working dogs, such as hunting ability or herding.
"Clinton has no grand children."
ReplyDeleteThat we know of.
Lincoln is said to have no living descendants. IIRC, he at least had grandchildren. None of them produced progeny.
Washington was almost certainly sterile. It happens - more than you might think.
Members of the Forbes 400 seem to do their share of legitimate procreating, and I'm sure they have more than a few extra "off the books," so to speak.
Raising your children in a religious sect that encourages procreation doesn't seem to hurt. The elite populations of both 17th century Puritans and 19th century Mormons were certainly increased by strong procreative tendencies.
Most current day politicians have a lot of kids. Some of whom I wish didn't. Another project for someone is to get the average number of kids for all congressional members and further break it out by ethnicity and area of the country. Don't have the time myself.
ReplyDeleteSteve, thank you for writing this, I am glad I am not the only one who is intrigued (afflicted?) by this curiosity. One of my recent favorites was the LAT cartoonist Paul Conrad, whose obit IIRC described him as a devout Catholic which drove his politics towards the left. He had 4 kids, but only one grandchild. Don't know about his children's political inclinations or commitments to social justice, but I guess he failed to impress upon them certain aspects of his faith!
ReplyDeleteDavid in Irvine,CA
Looking at recent presidents and party nominees to judge the fertility of the successful is not particularly helpful, because there are very few for any given generation. For the baby boomers so far only Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama and Bush.
ReplyDeleteReminds me a bit of the email that circulated back in 2004 (by Moby and others) with a cherrypicked list of Democrats who had served in the military versus Republicans who had not. Scouring Michael Barone's 2002 Almanac of American Politics I found that among male congressmen and governors, Republicans were slightly more likely to have served (active duty and/or reserves) than Democrats.
It's best to select a large, objectively gathered list of "successful" individuals for whom reliable data is available - congressmen, billionaires, whomever - and draw from that.
Both in the US and globally the ultra wealthy are notably fertile.
ReplyDeleteMade me think of the Queen & Prince Philip.
Four children.
Eight grandchildren.
ReplyDeletenot a hacker said...
Steve, you don't really believe Nicklaus could dunk, do you? I played 25 years of serious pick-up b-ball and never saw a white kid under 6'1" dunk.
You must not play a very good brand of pick up basketball, or generally know anything about the sport. I'm exactly 6'0" and could dunk easily--even after a surgically repaired right knee.
Oh yeah, and there's also this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6UzKptKPg0
My favorite sports columnist, Joe Posnanski, has often said that Jack Nicklaus is the best interview in sports.
ReplyDeleteOh, it's NOT because Jack is particularly charming or funny. It's NOT because Jack has hundreds of great anecdotes to share. Nor does Jack deliver memorable quotes often. Rather, says Posnanski, what makes Nicklaus a great interview is this: Nicklaus will always give a thoughtful, honest, intelligent answer to EXACTLY what he's asked.
Many sportswriters prefer, say, a Charles Barkley, who'll repond to complex or challenging questions with a great joke that completely sidesteps the question. Nicklaus never does that. Ask him a tough question, and he'll answer it as fully and as truthfully as he can.