The Longevity of Social ScientistsAuthor(s): Chester AlexanderSource: Social Forces, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Oct., 1946), pp. 46-48Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2571706 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 15:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Forces.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:43:28 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

46 SOCIAL FORCES

of boys in school is considerably greater than is true of girls; that a larger percentage of the girls at all ages are enrolled in school than is true of the boys; that the rural-farm white boys fail to equal the educational progress of the rural-farm white girls by a greater degree than is true of the boys of any other white residential group; and that similar differences in the formal educational attainment is to be found in the adult population of the State.

Since the government in all its branches, and the various economic, religious and educational insti- tutions of the State are directed and managed largely by men, one would expect that the educa- tion of boys would be regarded as of greater im-

portance than that of the girls. However, from the data of this study one seems justified in con- cluding either that families in Louisiana, both the white and the colored, place more importance- on the education of girls than of boys, and parents are more inclined to require the girls to attend school more regularly than the boys, or that the schools of the State do not meet the felt needs of boys so well as they do of the girls.4

4 Since the 1940 Census the Louisiana State Legis- lature has passed an effective compulsory education law and most of the parishes of the State are making an effort to place all children in school.

THE LONGEVITY OF SOCIAL SCIENTISTS* CHESTER ALEXANDER

Fulton, Missouri

T-- gHE basic data for this paper were taken from a recent study of 11,900 eminent people who were distributed over several

continents, many centuries, and 24 occupations. One of these professional groups, hereafter referred to as social scientists, was made up of anthropolo- gists, archeologists, economists, political scientists, and sociologists.

Eminent educators (167 of them) had the longest mean longevity (72.56 years), and they were followed by 270 lawyers (72.39), 168 engineers (71.10), 281 naturalists (71.09); then came the 219 social scientists with a mean of 71.01. Others who have exceeded the "three-score-and-ten" years are 209 philologists (70.85), 116 astronomers (70.35), 343 historians (70.12), and 141 inventors (70.09). The social scientists are fifth in the list of 24, and their standard deviation was found to be 11.85 years.

In addition to those given above were 772 paint- ers (67.12), 1245 prose writers (66.64), 162 actors (66.05), and 684 poets (61.94). Their mean standard deviation is 14.40 years.

The preceding information shows that the social scientists stand near the top of a group of eminent persons who have exceeded their seventh decade, and their sigma range is shorter than the others

excepting lawyers (11.38), chemists (11.52), and historians (11.80). This low measure of deviation indicates that the social scientists who have attained the degree of prominence accorded to the 219 persons listed in the biographical data used in this study have not reached their high standing early in life.

Since the total number of social scientists who have reached places of considerable importance in their professional fields is much greater than these 219, it must be assumed that the selection of this small group was quite rigid. It may also be taken for granted that the quality of scholarship which they exhibited was quite superior for that seems to be one of the bases on which their international reputation was judged.

Certain professional groups such as explorers and inventors may become famous by the com- mission of a single act such as the discovery of a new land or the creation of an ingenious machine. This could hardly be true, however, for social scientists, with the single exception of archeolo- gists, for their work builds up more slowly to a place of recognized excellence. One might add that the lawyers and educators appear also to have passed through a long period in which they have made many contributions to the culture base, quite similar to the social scientists, before they were given such lofty recognition.

In contrast to this slow accumulation one may

* This is the fifth of a series of articles dealing with the correlation between longevity and intelligence.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:43:28 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TEA CHING AND RESEARCH IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES 47

recall how certain musicians have left a great heritage in melody, or how a few painters have been classed among the immortals because of their masterpieces. At the same time one should call to mind that those engaged in the arts (such as poets, actors, painters, musicians) probablymake use of a much narrower range of capabilities than social scientists. That is, the creative ability of artists appears to rest on a more distinct innate talent. This indicates that artists might master their professions at an earlier age than social scientists and, therefore, enter into a period of creativeness earlier in life. Evidence that this happens is shown by the fact that their standard deviation (14.40), as mentioned previously, is quite a bit longer than that of social scientists.

The author wishes to suggest, without taking the space necessary to advance the evidence available at present, that there seems to be a definite positive correlation between longevity and intelligence. The former readily yields to measurement when- ever authentic dates can be found, but the latter is more difficult to treat statistically since intelli- gence scores were not used before the opening of this century. Without these numerical data one cannot directly find a factor of correlation. As a consequence of this one must rely largely on the rigid selection done by those who make up the select biographies as an index of the intellectual abilities of those who are included in the data.

There are several other avenues open for the consideration of the positive correlation between intelligence and longevity, and some of them pro- vide mathematical materials which make a sta- tistical analysis possible. Since intelligence is held to be innate, the first of these avenues links intelligence and longevity on a biological level in that they are both natural gifts. This view ne- cessitates taking the position that longevity is very largely determined before birth, or as some would state it, longevity runs in families.? If this biological differential is not admitted, then we must assume that all persons have the same chances to live long, and that is obviously not true since those who fall at the lower end of the I.Q. scale do not have an average length of life as great as the general population.

If we accept the view for a moment that those who live longer than others do so by pure chance we then recall that chance favors a median posi-

tion, and in this the longevity of the whole popula- tion would come to resemble a normal curve, but factual data show that it does not. The conclusion is being suggested that the more successful struggle for existence by the intelligent tips the scales, forming a negative skew, and consequently those who make the most use of their superior native endowment are to be found at the upper end of the longevity curve. Since, as mentioned previously, intelligence is considered to be innate, those who gravitate to the upper end of this curve would be gifted with greater mental ability.

One should not assume that this comes about simply as a natural process, governed solely by biological direction, for there is not enough evi- dence to support that view. Whatever is trans- mitted biologically, parent to offspring, apparently comes through the genes, and so far we have been unable to explain the gradual lengthening of the mean length of life of the general population by changes in the chromosomes. Somewhere there must be given thought to the influence of culture on longevity. We do not yet know whether cul- ture has disturbed the differential distribution of nature with respect to lengths of life, but it seems evident that the mean advances as culture becomes more complex. At least that is the normal way. However, culture may pull down the average when its destructive elements, such as war, begin to dominate the pattern of social interaction.

We may state, without much apparent opposi- tion, that the use of human intelligence is directly associated with cultural advance, whether it be in making independent inventions or discoveries, or the acceptance of culture traits through the channels of diffusion, and this links longevity to social factors. Ultimately these lead to a longer mean life for the population whose culture is grow- ing. This will work to the greatest advantage of those who make the most use of their native intel- lectual abilities, and least to those who do not possess the mental ability necessary to see and accept the benefits of those traits in culture which would enable them to live better, hence longer, or who are not aided by others in applying such knowledge.

It may, consequently, be appropriate to point out that the selection of those parts of culture which are most conducive to longevity should be particularly easy for social scientists since they, of all the scientific groups, pay most attention to the I Dublin and Lotka, Length of Life, ch. 7.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:43:28 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

48 SOCIAL FORCES

nature and problems of human society. They observe social trends and engage in the extraction of deductions which best represent natural laws regarding the functioning of social life.

If this is correct then one ought to feel safe in predicting that social scientists will advance their mean age more rapidly than some of the other scientific groups who do not give the same amount of attention to the affective aspects of culture. If the mean of longevity of the social scientists were

to be raised 1 year and 204 days they would top the list.2

2Sources: Biographical section, Webster's New In- ternational Dictionary, Second Edition; The New Encyclopedia of Music and Musicians, ed. by W. S. Pratt (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1931); Length of Life, by Dublin and Lotka (New York: Ronald Press, 1936); The Home Book of Verse (regarding poets) 1580-1920, by Burton Egbert Stevenson (New York: Holt, 1922).

UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTERS IN THE SOUTH

A five-year program in which 33 selected universities and colleges will join to "vitalize instruction" has been announced by 0. C. Carmichael, president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. The project will be financed by a special grant to the Foundation of $700,000 from the Carnegie Corporation of New York plus $200,000 from the cooperating institutions, making available a total of $900,000.

University Centers have been set up at Atlanta, Nashville, New Orleans, and in North Carolina, each center serving as the focal point for several colleges; in the case of North Carolina, Duke University at Durham and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill will serve jointly. The grouping is as follows:

ATLANTA CENTER: EMORY UNIVERSITY (with the University of Georgia, Georgia School of Technology, Agnes Scott College, Atlanta Art Association, and Columbia Theological Semi- nary cooperating)-University of Chattanooga, Chattanooga, Tennessee; Huntington Col- lege, Montgomery, Alabama; John B. Stetson University, Deland, Florida; Wesleyan College, Macon, Georgia.

NASHVILLE CENTER: VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY (with George Peabody College for Teachers and Scarritt College cooperating)-Birmingham-Southern Coll-ege, Birmingham, Alabama; Hendrix College, Conway, Arkansas; University of the South, Sewanee, Tennessee; South- western, Memphis, Tennessee; Transylvania College, Lexington, Kentucky.

NEW ORLEANS CENTER: TEE TULANE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA-Centenary College, Shreveport, Louisiana; Louisiana College, Pineville, Louisiana; Loyola University of the South, New Orleans, Louisiana; Millsaps College, Jackson, Mississippi; Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas.

NORTH CAROLINA CENTER: DUKE UNIVERSITY, DuRHAM, AND THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, CHAPEL HILL-College of Charleston, Charleston, South Carolina; Davidson Col- lege, Davidson, North Carolina; Furman University, Greenville, South Carolina; Woffard and Converse Colleges, Spartanburg, South Carolina (serving as one unit); Wake Forest College, Wake Forest, North Carolina.

The Foundation will provide $15,000 annually for five years to each of the university centers, and they have agreed to add individually $5,000 a year. Each of the twenty college units will receive $4,000 annually, which the college will supplement with $1,000 a year.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:43:28 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions