Request in Finding a Historical Study: Results show that across history 4 out of 10 men reproduce and 8 out of 10 women reproduce. conclusion: Men are the "weed out" gender.

dropit_sphere · 2013-11-11T00:37:22+00:00

You may want to email Roy F. Baumeister, who is quoted as saying such:

"The first big, basic difference has to do with what I consider to be the most underappreciated fact about gender. Consider this question: What percent of our ancestors were women?

It’s not a trick question, and it’s not 50%. True, about half the people who ever lived were women, but that’s not the question. We’re asking about all the people who ever lived who have a descendant living today. Or, put another way, yes, every baby has both a mother and a father, but some of those parents had multiple children.

Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.

I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced."

realniggasstandup · 2013-11-11T01:58:29+00:00

it's the wilder, mobasher, hammer study:

http://hammerlab.biosci.arizona.edu/publications/Wilder_2004_MBE.pdf

luxury_banana · 2013-11-11T02:07:23+00:00

Strong gender differences in reproductive success variance, and the times to the most recent common ancestors tests this with various models and simulations.

Spoilers: When the population is heterogeneous (alphas/betas, like in the real world) and things like promiscuity/infidelity (also exists in the real world) are accounted for, it turns out to be true.

PIBagent · 2013-11-11T05:19:09+00:00

It's just as well, after you die what happens to your lineage becomes irrelevant as the vast majority of people (if any) will not remember you after you are gone regardless of if you reproduce or not.

At best this study suggests that since society is rigged to weed out most men (but only after extracting sufficient resources from them) you should consider not playing into their game.

through_a_ways · 2013-11-11T02:19:32+00:00

I know exactly what you're talking about, but the fact misleads some people.

Let's say that women consistently reproduce at 80%, and men at 70%. Let's start with equal numbers of women and men in the first generation.

In the second generation, the male:female ratio is 7:8

In the third generation, it's 5:6.5

In the fourth generation, it's 3.5:5

In the fifth generation, it's 2.5:4

By the sixth generation, we get a 1:2 ratio.

So if that fact is true, it doesn't mean that twice as many women as men reproduce in a single generation. Rather, it means that on average, in a single generation, women reproduce a tiny bit more than men, so that over the several thousand generations of humanity, we've gotten a 1:2 ratio.

Of course, this differential probably wasn't constant; it most likely varied a lot over different time periods, depending on things like conquest, etc.

If you want a genealogical redpill, look at the diversity of the world by Y DNA vs. mtDNA haplogroups:

http://amnaj.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/y-haplogroups-of-the-world.jpg

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2007-03/1174412643.Ge.1.jpg

Notice that there are several regions where we have much more mitochondrial (female) diversity than Y (male) diversity.

There are also many regions where mitochondrial and Y haplogroup diversity are roughly equal, particularly in central asia, due to recent repeated conquests by different lineages.

But there aren't many places on that map where you have little mitochondrial diversity, and lots of Y diversity.

Comments