12. @imhinesmi
Many of your ancestors were rapists, murderers, women who cuckolded their husbands, men who cheated etc. Think clearly about the process that created you and the incentives hidden within you.
-
Show this thread
-
When looked for it turns out that cuckholdry is actually very rare in the Eurasian species of human
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
For present day about 1.5% at the high end. Last names vs genes which covers a few hundred years of history - 0.73% for Afrikaners, 1.6% for Irish, 1.3% for Englishhttps://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/by-blows-paternal-age-and-all-that/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @imhinesmi
Yeah, well 1%× thousands of generations = certainty
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
The the latter numbers indicate a ~1% chance for at least one event in the last few hundred years - that's how often you get a genetic mismatch with a last name. 1% for a single event in a line for 20 events; not for each event.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Those numbers really do highlight how bad modern society is when examined at it more closely. Notice the drastic mismatch between the modern numbers and the historic. Present day is ~99% for paternal certainty but over 20 generations ~99% for no cuckholding - implies much lower
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Running through this quickly it for the result to be a 1% chance of there being a surname / genetic mismatch you need not 99% of paternity certainty but ~99.95% paternity certainty. Modern society is awful.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Math backup for that: Binomial distribution, 20 trials, 20 successes, p() = .99 - result is 82% p() needs to be at .9994 to get to the 98.8% we see.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @imhinesmi
That's interesting. Also, remember that a 1% chance of cuckoldry means that quite a lot of attempted cuckoldry has to happen, it's not an instant/certain thing.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
1% today. IOW, modern society is crap at preventing women's instinct to commit paternity fraud compared to past society.
-
-
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @imhinesmi
Yes but if you look at how strongly women were repressed in previous eras it makes perfect sense. 1.5% per generation would mean that over 40 generations a man has a 50% chance of losing his investment in his descendants.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Yes, women obviously need to have their instincts repressed for civilization to continue functioning. 1% chance of paternity fraud is historically unprecedented and civilization ending (as you're seeing with, ya know, the end of civilization)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.