4 ms·
Family names are not as strongly correlated with genetics as you might be assuming. Consider that for each generation the genetics of the family founder are di
by pcrh 1y ago
Family names are not as strongly correlated with genetics as you might be assuming.
Consider that for each generation the genetics of the family founder are diluted by 50% (assuming that consanguineous relations are excluded). So after 5 generations or so, only ~3% of the heirs' DNA is specific to the family founder.
So, the fact that names per se better predict outcomes than DNA very strongly points to social factors as the major determinants.
- dash2 1y agoUnless there's very strong assortative mating...
- pcrh 1y agoWouldn't assortative mating that is sufficiently strong to overcome the 50% dilution per generation amount to consanguinous mating?
- dash2 1y agoNot necessarily. You only have to overcome the dilution on specific dimensions. Suppose everyone mates only on intelligence, and marries a person of exactly equal genetic intelligence to themselves. Then there's no dilution per generation on intelligence, though there is on e.g. height.
- pcrh 1y agoThe question here is why names are so highly predictive. It seems highly unlikely that each generation would be selecting on precisely the same genetic features of a particularly prominent family name. This is because that which provides social prominence is not consistent over time.