what happened in 2010?
-
-
-
Tinder?
-
The problem is, the mid-00s numbers aren't believable. I think the general trend from 1990 to now is correct though
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It's how we're wired.https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success …
-
17 to 1 seems awfully high, but in general yes
-
There are problems with that article I think
@SilverVVulpes doesn't agree with it not sure though it may have been yeyoza. The sexual selection seems way too high imho humans should be like elephant seals if it was 17 to 1 we aren't though. -
I agree with the original source. 17 to 1 is bananas press interpretation, assuming all the effect you'd need to see those genetic patterns in one generation took place in all generations, when it's more about extended families of nobles and warlords having high reproductive...
-
fitness too. Similar to Genghis Khan's sons having many wives too, he didn't end up related to 1 in 200 people juy by himself. See https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2015/03/21/y-chromosome-crash/ …http://www.unz.com/gnxp/patriarchy-came-with-cain-and-abel/ …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.