Polygamy simulation

Discussion in 'TMT - Public' started by Mycroft Jones, Dec 8, 2016.

  1. Mycroft Jones

    Mycroft Jones The TM/FM Station Baron

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Posts:
    298
    Thanks Received:
    112
  2. Mycroft Jones

    Mycroft Jones The TM/FM Station Baron

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Posts:
    298
    Thanks Received:
    112
    I don't know what you mean by "The data looks like stupid.". It is what it is. But thank you; the extra data points you provided are going into the simulation right now. Interesting to see that dip; so man that breed between ages of 26 and 30 ALSO produce a surplus of females. And historically, that age range was typical for men to get married.
     
  3. Lorien

    Lorien Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2016
    Posts:
    162
    Thanks Received:
    129
    The fact that there is no effect whatever up until age 40 is suspicious. In addition the last bin is wider than the rest. It includes men aged 41.. and 60, and 80. Impossible to say when the effect sets in. But given that there is zero effect in the 36-40 group, probably nothing dramatic happens at ages 41-45, or 46-50.

    Furthermore most people don't have their first child after age 40. The total studied sample was 4700 men or so. The 41+ category might not have more than a few dozen people, making it sensitive to outliers and noise.

    Furthermore most of those men will have have wives of an advanced age too, meaning that the medical establishment is often involved in making a successful pregnancy, and who knows what effect that might have.

    Another thing about the women; The effect is equally strong for women as they age. The women even have a consistent declining male birth rate before age 40 as well, albeit small, making it more plausible that it's caused by something about the women not the men. Of course it's impossible to determine statistically which gender causes it because people tend to have kids with a partner of similar age in our society.

    So what I mean by the data being stupid, in a nutshell, is that it's not possible to draw any particular conclusion about when the effect sets in, or indeed that it even is a real effect, from it. And this does seem to be the data set your original figure originated from, since it was linked in your article.


    The anecdotes about a few patriarchal and matriarchal societies having skewed birth rates are highly interesting, but ultimately not convincing. One issue with observational cultural anthropology is that sometimes people want to hide their true nature from the prying eyes of foreigners. I will not be surprised if their birthrate was skewed because they needed it to be that way... by any means.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2016
    • Thank Thank x 2

Share This Page