Here is the publication in question: http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2009semen.pdf
Here is an addendum trying to explain why it might be the case: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2775227/
I still don't get how Google doesn't nuke the websites that do this into oblivion...
In all seriousness, it'd be great to see a more thorough study here. I see so many confounding factors. Measuring intelligence is a tough one. Perhaps people more likely to score higher on intelligence tests come from a part of the world where higher sperm counts were selected for genetically. For example, how do sperm counts correlated with the number of cold vs hot days during an average year? Or humidity levels? Or circumcision traditions? Or average penis size? My point is that there are so many factors that go into calculating intelligence and at least to me it seems there are as many factors that affect sperm count that this correlation may be influenced by several other hidden variables.
I suppose the question is how much less intelligent does the majority have to be for the world to look like Idiocracy? How likely is that to happen, given the communication tech and education options that are emerging?
EDIT: [1] Fair point, riffraff. Actually quite tough for me to rephrase without spending significant time on it (I'm clearly not in the minority...), how about: "the most intelligent humans (by IQ) are naturally in the minority, as with any natural distribution/bell-curve, meaning the 'less intelligent' majority already dominate, as in Idiocracy, and by definition they must always continue to do so". That's a mouthful, but I hope the point is clear enough.
it would make sense that the quality of sperm correlates with intelligence, because it would have to be less damaged in order to reliably transmit these attributes. the headline seems to dance around this, perhaps because of the controversy involved.
one unfortunate factor which affects the quality of sperm - paternal age. average number of mutations increase every year. so if you're "thinking" about starting a family, consider that a disincentive to wait.
Smart guy --> better sperm or Better sperm --> smart guy
maybe my sperm is telling me something with this question.
I don't think people know what "depends" means anymore. Especially the "vice versa" part.
That means if you improve the quality of your sperm, as a direct consequence you will become more intelligent, which brings forward all kinds of interesting questions, such as do men really think with their balls?
Some phenomena ate approximately constant. (How many eyes do you have?)
1. Users have to be able to find and read interesting content.
2. Content publishers have to be able to make enough money so that they continue to find it economical to produce content.
"First click free" was the compromise solution for this. Google's incentives actually run both ways - if they couldn't use paywalls, most content sites would probably use AdSense or DoubleClick, both Google products. But it's unlikely that a site like The Economist or The New York Times could continue to produce quality articles off AdSense revenue alone.
URLs are the standard for accessing web documents. A URL is a universal identifier. The referrer is not part of a URL. The Economist's use of URLs is breaking the web.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-Unintended-Pregnancy-US.ht...