3 ms·
I think you misunderstood what they were trying to say. They were trying to get an estimate on the prevalence of incest. So the number of people who have been
by novia 1y ago
I think you misunderstood what they were trying to say.
They were trying to get an estimate on the prevalence of incest.
So the number of people who have been documented to have DNA showing that this happened is literally the floor on the amount of times incest occurs.
- robertlagrant 1y agoYes, for UK Biobank's samples. I'm saying that the UK Biobank's samples could in theory have a higher than average rate of incest, making that number not a floor for the overall population. I'm only making a technical point of logic. It's not a comment on UK Biobank in general.
- mnw21cam 1y agoAs I mentioned in a parallel comment, the opposite is likely true due to the bias in the selection process for Biobank.
- robertlagrant 1y agoI'm still not making a particular comment about UK Biobank. I'm saying the logic in the article is bad, as it says this number must be a floor. This isn't the case.
- mnw21cam 1y agoLogically true.
- coldtea 1y agoIf the statistics are done on "Incest survivors DNA bank" and show 100% occurence of incest, it doesn't mean they're applicable to the general population. That's the argument. That this DNA bank has a (lesser than the contrived example, but still true) bias.