Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Friends are as genetically similar as fourth cousins

pnas.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 143 posts

Re: Friends are as genetically similar as fourth cousins

#131

Post by justinlardinois »

fiatjaf wrote: post #15
roninb wrote: post #3

In case you were also wondering what a "fourth cousin" was, someone who shares a pair of great-great-great grandparents[0]. Wikipedia has a great set of diagrams[1] in case you're also confused about first, second, or third cousins. I figure through induction you can presume any nth and nth removed from that page (I foolishly thought 3rd was where people arbitrarily stopped keeping count....) [0] https://www.referenc…

I get mad at people who think sons of first-cousins are second-cousins all the time -- and, frankly, almost everyone I know think this way. I'm glad you linked to this Wikipedia article that proves I'm not mad into thinking there is a simple logic pattern that can be applied to cousinship. However, this "once removed" notation is crazy. Why not second-uncle for parents of second-cousins and so on?

Isn't the term "uncle" relatively recent? I recall Hamlet referring to his father's brother as his cousin.

Re: Friends are as genetically similar as fourth cousins

#132

Post by Manishearth »

Noseshine wrote: post #93
Manishearth wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to live in Malden, and IIRC Framingham and the other suburbs were pretty diverse. That's what I was basing my comment on. Of course, my personal bubble could have skewed this -- looking it up it seems like Malden is more diverse than Framingham, but Framingham seems to still be close enough to the overall distribution in the US. Not the same of course. shrug > The study isn't "wrong" of course, it clearly stat…

Okay, here is what you wrote: > Given that the US is a lot more racially heterogenous than the majority of the world "The US". You didn't say "Framingham". You know, it's really a PITA to have discussions with someone who can't just say "I made a mistake, I edited my comment" or something like that and instead try anything else.

Sure, I made a mistake. I was using prior knowledge of Framingham/the region that I didn't spell out in my first comment. I should have done that, but I was lazy and it didn't occur to me. Happy? I spelled it out in the next comment to explain the basis of the previous one, which I felt was sufficient. Evidently it wasn't; because you want explicit admission of fault. Here you go.

Re: Friends are as genetically similar as fourth cousins

#133

Post by fiatjaf »

unethical_ban wrote: post #103
fiatjaf wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get mad at people who think sons of first-cousins are second-cousins all the time -- and, frankly, almost everyone I know think this way. I'm glad you linked to this Wikipedia article that proves I'm not mad into thinking there is a simple logic pattern that can be applied to cousinship. However, this "once removed" notation is crazy. Why not second-uncle for parents of second-cousins and so on?

That's how we've always done it. * Brother of father is uncle. Son of uncle is cousin. Son of son of uncle is second cousin. * Brother of grandfather is great-uncle. Son of great-uncle is second cousin.

That's exactly what you shouldn't be doing.

Re: Friends are as genetically similar as fourth cousins

#134

Post by fiatjaf »

eru wrote: post #51
fiatjaf wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get mad at people who think sons of first-cousins are second-cousins all the time -- and, frankly, almost everyone I know think this way. I'm glad you linked to this Wikipedia article that proves I'm not mad into thinking there is a simple logic pattern that can be applied to cousinship. However, this "once removed" notation is crazy. Why not second-uncle for parents of second-cousins and so on?

You are hitting the borders where logic and common usage meet. I am actually surprised that descriptive grammar holds up so well to logic. (There's no a priori reason why descriptive grammar, that describes common usage of language, actually is as mostly compressible to simple rules as it is.)

If there's a clearer and more specific way to speak about something, we should try to use it.

Re: Friends are as genetically similar as fourth cousins

#135

Post by fiatjaf »

justinlardinois wrote: post #131
fiatjaf wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get mad at people who think sons of first-cousins are second-cousins all the time -- and, frankly, almost everyone I know think this way. I'm glad you linked to this Wikipedia article that proves I'm not mad into thinking there is a simple logic pattern that can be applied to cousinship. However, this "once removed" notation is crazy. Why not second-uncle for parents of second-cousins and so on?

Isn't the term "uncle" relatively recent? I recall Hamlet referring to his father's brother as his cousin.

You must be very old.

Re: Friends are as genetically similar as fourth cousins

#136

Post by fiatjaf »

dietrichepp wrote: post #19
fiatjaf wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get mad at people who think sons of first-cousins are second-cousins all the time -- and, frankly, almost everyone I know think this way. I'm glad you linked to this Wikipedia article that proves I'm not mad into thinking there is a simple logic pattern that can be applied to cousinship. However, this "once removed" notation is crazy. Why not second-uncle for parents of second-cousins and so on?

Pardon me for my ignorance, but wouldn't sons of first cousins be second cousins?

You can call them anything you like, I'm just saying that you shouldn't.

Re: Friends are as genetically similar as fourth cousins

#137

Post by fiatjaf »

ironrabbit wrote: post #20
dietrichepp wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pardon me for my ignorance, but wouldn't sons of first cousins be second cousins?

Language quirk :) The son of my first cousin is my first cousin once removed. My son and my cousin's son are second cousins.

No! Stop the removed madness!

Re: Friends are as genetically similar as fourth cousins

#138

Post by JoeAltmaier »

roninb wrote: post #3

In case you were also wondering what a "fourth cousin" was, someone who shares a pair of great-great-great grandparents[0]. Wikipedia has a great set of diagrams[1] in case you're also confused about first, second, or third cousins. I figure through induction you can presume any nth and nth removed from that page (I foolishly thought 3rd was where people arbitrarily stopped keeping count....) [0] https://www.referenc…

Also, its grand-uncle (not great-uncle). You don't have a great-mother do you? Its a grandmother. Thus granduncle.

Re: Friends are as genetically similar as fourth cousins

#139

Post by auganov »

bzbarsky wrote: post #119
auganov wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, didn't at all realize how bad it used to be :O Even today it seems to be much worse than I'd naively assume.

Yeah, historically people had lots of kids not least because lots of them would not survive... As for today, child mortality in developed countries is well less than 1%. And most of that is infant mortality (death before age 1). For example, http://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.CM1320R (sorry, somewhat slow) shows that in the US in 2015 infant mortality was 5.6 per 1000, while child mortality was 6.5 per 1000. Neon…

I don't remember having a concrete number in my mind. I guess I'd assume .1% for today. Had a picture of it as "something that's very tragic and basically doesn't happen anymore". While .5% puts it into the "not likely but might happen to you" range.

And as for a century and two ago I'd be waaaaaaay off base. Probably 10% or even 5%. It's hard to say in the hindsight. Now it seems so obvious and makes you feel stupid.

Re: Friends are as genetically similar as fourth cousins

#140

Post by [deleted] »

songshu wrote: post #80
fiatjaf wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for being sane. Russians are decent people, it seems. Is the 2nd-uncle terminology widespread in Russia too?

Also good because it means you are your own 0th brother which makes sense. In the western version you are your own -1st cousin :(

[deleted]
Post reply on HN