Trivers–Willard Hypothesis
en.wikipedia.org
Trivers–Willard Hypothesis
1–10 of 21 posts
Re: Trivers–Willard Hypothesis
#2Quick fact for everyone:
Billionaires have more sons, which is somewhat proof of this for humans
Re: Trivers–Willard Hypothesis
#3Quick fact for everyone: Billionaires have more sons, which is somewhat proof of this for humans
I'd be interested in a citation, first thought which springs to mind is sample size and size of the bias.
Re: Trivers–Willard Hypothesis
#4Quick fact for everyone: Billionaires have more sons, which is somewhat proof of this for humans
Even if that is true, given how easy it is for a billionaire to have an abortion if they don't want a daughter, and to make sure no one knows about it, I don't think it's proof of anything directly.
Re: Trivers–Willard Hypothesis
#5Quick fact for everyone: Billionaires have more sons, which is somewhat proof of this for humans
I'd be interested in a citation, first thought which springs to mind is sample size and size of the bias.
Presumably it’s this study: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Elissa_Cameron/publicat...
It cited 60% male to female billionaire ratio on n of 350.
But, the methodology was to use google and Wikipedia for research so a more honest claim might be “male offspring of billionaires show up in search results more often.”
I suppose that factoid wouldn’t have been paid for by the publisher though.
Re: Trivers–Willard Hypothesis
#6Quick fact for everyone: Billionaires have more sons, which is somewhat proof of this for humans
Men with higher testosterone have more sons, maybe billionaires have more testosterone.
Re: Trivers–Willard Hypothesis
#7Quick fact for everyone: Billionaires have more sons, which is somewhat proof of this for humans
Even if that is true, given how easy it is for a billionaire to have an abortion if they don't want a daughter, and to make sure no one knows about it, I don't think it's proof of anything directly.
[deleted]
Re: Trivers–Willard Hypothesis
#8I've also read a study that human couples with more symmetrical faces produce more daughters than sons.
Re: Trivers–Willard Hypothesis
#9Quick fact for everyone: Billionaires have more sons, which is somewhat proof of this for humans
Even if that is true, given how easy it is for a billionaire to have an abortion if they don't want a daughter, and to make sure no one knows about it, I don't think it's proof of anything directly.
I don’t think people are preferentially aborting females to any appreciable degree in the west. Received wisdom is that boys are a pain in the ass to rear. And, anecdotally, most parents are interested in having one of each, not in having one particular sex over the other.
Re: Trivers–Willard Hypothesis
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd be interested in a citation, first thought which springs to mind is sample size and size of the bias.
Presumably it’s this study: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Elissa_Cameron/publicat... It cited 60% male to female billionaire ratio on n of 350. But, the methodology was to use google and Wikipedia for research so a more honest claim might be “male offspring of billionaires show up in search results more often.” I suppose that factoid wouldn’t have been paid for by the publisher though.
Thinking more about my own comment, perhaps researchers expecting to find more male offspring while googling find male offspring more often!