It's interesting how evolutionary psych has penetrated the media. Obviously, the diminishing creativity accompanying marriage is to be explained in evolutionary terms--the men have wives now, so they don't need to impress women. What the fuck? Like any guy is happy with his wife. I think it's much more socio-political. . .the way man and wife get petty with each other, the trap of domesticity, providing for kids whose youth and whininess you resent in partnership with a wife who you stopped loving long ago, barbecues, softball, shopping malls and home improvement projects watching Bob Villa. . .

I think this whole thing is a pile of crap. OK, first of all, what kind of sample is this guy using? Famous scientists and criminals. Does he really think criminal activity is similar to creative output? And how representative are the top few percent of really really successful scientists of all creative and/or intellectual people? To say nothing of the fact that he has no explanation for creativity in women. And how does he explain that older unmarried scientists don't have high creative output, since unmarried criminals continue to commit crimes when they're old?

I can think of lots of other reasons to explain why highly successful scientists are much more likely to make breakthroughs when they're under 30. Maybe the really revolutionary minds burn out early. Maybe once they've gotten lots of awards they rest on their laurels. Maybe getting married does have something to do with it--maybe now they have something to do besides sit around the lab until it's time to go home and go to bed. (I've met quite a few unmarried older scientists and they are a SAD lot--and not particularly successful compared to their married peers.)

I could go on and on. And I did, when my friend Chris blogged about this article too (at www.letterneversent.com), in case you're interested.

As for crime, I think a visit to the family waiting room at any state prison would provide evidence enough that marriage doesn't automatically put an end to a criminal career.

I agree with most of what's been said here. The scientific studies that are most quickly absorbed into pop culture never seem very scientific, in part because AP write-ups sensationalize their findings, and in part because the findings always seem to simplify causality.

This article seems to juggle two hypotheses (the under-30 hypothesis, the marriage hypothesis), or, worse, imply that aging is a kind of inherent domestication.

A couple more thoughts:

"The energy of youth and the dampening effect of marriage, he adds, are also remarkably similar among geniuses in music, painting and writing?"

I thought everybody knew that writers get better with age.

"But those who marry well subsequently stop committing crime, whereas criminals at the same age who remain unmarried tend to continue their unlawful careers."

So, what about the criminals who don't marry "well"? How is marrying "well" distinguished from plain-old-marrying?