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

Study reveals average age at conception for men vs. women over past 250k years

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 166 posts

Re: Study reveals average age at conception for men vs. women over past 250k years

#131

Post by [deleted] »

hutzlibu wrote: post #61
pooper wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a simpler explanation. Those older men are known actors/stars who have established some influence in the industry. That or some people might buy tickets to watch movies because it has a familiar name in leading role. The combination of the two above might be enough to explain why the older men can still play lead roles in movies.

Well, that leads to the question, why only men were famous actors past 40, which is where the arguments becomes tautological. Because men can have attractive roles past 40 and women not, or only very rarely. I don't remember the name of the movie, but it was about greek and a female character that was 40, but the cast was not offered to a 40 year old, but a 30 year old. Because 40 year old women are not supposed to l…

[deleted]

Re: Study reveals average age at conception for men vs. women over past 250k years

#132

Post by UncleEntity »

hutzlibu wrote: post #61
pooper wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a simpler explanation. Those older men are known actors/stars who have established some influence in the industry. That or some people might buy tickets to watch movies because it has a familiar name in leading role. The combination of the two above might be enough to explain why the older men can still play lead roles in movies.

Well, that leads to the question, why only men were famous actors past 40, which is where the arguments becomes tautological. Because men can have attractive roles past 40 and women not, or only very rarely. I don't remember the name of the movie, but it was about greek and a female character that was 40, but the cast was not offered to a 40 year old, but a 30 year old. Because 40 year old women are not supposed to l…

> Well, that leads to the question, why only men were famous actors past 40, which is where the arguments becomes tautological.

It was well known that Hollywood had an age discrimination problem for women up until the mid or late 80s or so.

Like a really well known problem where women couldn’t get leading roles after a certain age. It was a well publicized thing and just kind of common knowledge.

Re: Study reveals average age at conception for men vs. women over past 250k years

#133

Post by svnt »

rat9988 wrote: post #83
svnt wrote: post #4

It seems they used modern human mutation rates, which vary by ~300%, to predict age at reproduction. Since the relationship between this rate in parents and the offspring even a few generations back does not seem to be particularly well understood, it seems they would have a hard time reaching back very far into history with this analysis and claiming any accuracy at all. To me it reads like someone bought a cheap e.…

This point was already addressed in the research. It is tiring to see this low effort comments on every research thread, thinking that the researchers are idiots and there is no need to read the article to reject it.

I’m personally tired of scientists who “address it” by dutifully calling out some subset of the problematic aspect of their approach, and then go ahead and publish low-quality results for the headline.

An analogy for this one could be saying something like “I know it sucks when people say unkind things, but I think you’re stupid.” Acknowledging the problem does nothing to prevent it or resolve it. It just means at some level the person knows what they’re doing is wrong, and they aren’t self-disciplined or integrated enough to stop.

It burdens the (numerous) other parties with the effort, in the same way scientific results like this do.

Re: Study reveals average age at conception for men vs. women over past 250k years

#134

Post by UncleEntity »

Lio wrote: post #102

No one seems to have mentioned the affects of war and dangerous jobs on these stats. After the first world war, for example, a large number of young men were gone. You can see the memorials with names on in any town or city in Europe. The women of that generation would have competed with older women for older men as potential partners if they wanted children.

Or just didn’t have kids.

I was watching some random show where they were talking about the reproduction rates in the former Soviet Union and large events (like world wars) have lasting effects on birth rates that echo through time approximately every twenty years.

Re: Study reveals average age at conception for men vs. women over past 250k years

#135

Post by renox »

metaphor wrote: post #92
hutzlibu wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that leads to the question, why only men were famous actors past 40, which is where the arguments becomes tautological. Because men can have attractive roles past 40 and women not, or only very rarely. I don't remember the name of the movie, but it was about greek and a female character that was 40, but the cast was not offered to a 40 year old, but a 30 year old. Because 40 year old women are not supposed to l…

Biased age disparity in marriage is hardly a "fantasy" or even "taboo". I suspect if you looked at e.g. the top quintile of male earners, or those who married more than once, you're liable to see an even more pronounced gap over the aggregate median. Equally as interesting, how do wealthy divorced/widowed women marry afterwards? Poking at US presidents that stood out (i.e. more than 5 years): | President | Born | Spo…

Our current French president would be an exception with a negative difference :-)

Re: Study reveals average age at conception for men vs. women over past 250k years

#136

Post by stevezsa8 »

kaba0 wrote: post #78
stevezsa8 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Romeo and Juliet is fictional. I mean sure, could count as "evidence" but you'd have to be aware of the strength of it. Imagine in a 100 years time, the next civilisation finds some popular dvd and tries to draw conclusions from it.

I just mentioned it as a much later example for early marriages, but my other example(s) wasn’t refuted. Also, I think quite a lot can be reconstructed from even primitive drawings, let alone a whole dvd we know got popular and thus even more relevant for an age.

The only "other example(s)" I could find from you was "The Bible". I (respectfully) avoided questioning it.

I do agree with you about getting information from even primitive drawings. I think we differ in our views about the degree and type of information we can get.

Re: Study reveals average age at conception for men vs. women over past 250k years

#137

Post by GoblinSlayer »

tanbog5 wrote: post #29
bufferoverflow wrote: post #14

Tbh, I thought in early humans females got pregnant at 12-15. Simply because that when they begin to have the capability to have kids.

I know that's a common conception about the past, but what's the actual evidence for it? There are plenty of social and religious norms even today that keep people from getting together too young. There's also no reason not to think people at the time understood how sex and pregnancy worked. They didn't have the internet but they were as intelligent as we are today. I'm sure they could figure out how to have "fun" wi…

Religious norms are alright. Before 2013 age of consent in Vatican was 12.

Re: Study reveals average age at conception for men vs. women over past 250k years

#138

Post by tokai »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #128
tokai wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are female hunter-gatherers even sexually mature by 12-15?

Sexually mature? Definitely not. Able to procreate? That depends on nutrition, probably not, only a few years later (15-17).

Sexual maturity means that an organism as reached the capability of to reproduce.

Looked around in the literature. Apparently consensus is that paleolithic hunter-gathers had menarche earlier than agricultural groups. Around the same age as the current averages in developed countries.

Re: Study reveals average age at conception for men vs. women over past 250k years

#139

Post by GoblinSlayer »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #128
tokai wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are female hunter-gatherers even sexually mature by 12-15?

Sexually mature? Definitely not. Able to procreate? That depends on nutrition, probably not, only a few years later (15-17).

And nutrition depends on whether they have someone to feed them.

Re: Study reveals average age at conception for men vs. women over past 250k years

#140

Post by GuB-42 »

kerpotgh wrote: post #46
pronlover723 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I watch a lot of old movies (30s-40s-50s). A ton of them have a 40s-50s man marrying a 20s woman. No idea if that was societal norm, mens fantasy, or whatever. I have to kind of believe movie execs would want the largest audience and so if 40s-50s men dating 20s women was not appealing to women of the time they'd been losing 1/2 the market. But, maybe these particular movies were the male equivalent of romance novels…

What world do you live in where 50 year old men don’t want 20 year old wives?

As they say, if you have dirty thoughts about 14 year old girl, and want do get rid of them, just spend some time with a 14 year old girl.

Same thing with 50 year old men with 20 year old wives. I am in my early 40s and there is no way I will marry woman in her early 20s, unless she is very special. Sure, 20 year old bodies are attractive, but maturity difference is too great. The movies are fantasies, showing off women at the age of peak physical attractiveness, with just enough immaturity to make the man feel more responsible by contrast, but without any of the quirks of actual immaturity.

Having a 20 year old sex partner is another story. And many women are willing to let you live your fantasy, for a time, for a price...

Post reply on HN