Rampant misattributed paternity: creation of an urban myth [pdf] (2002) | Hacker News Reader

Rampant misattributed paternity: creation of an urban myth [pdf] (2002)

pdfs.semanticscholar.org

21 pointsbookofjoe28 comments

Researchers could use the Swedish bio bank to get fairly accurate numbers as the database was established in 1975 and include all that was born between then and now.

As for the numbers in the study there is several factors that either increases or decreases the rate. Those that decrease the rate are studies that requiring informed consent, marriage, and high social economic status. For groups where all three is true you get rates around or below 1%, and for paternity testing labs which has the opposite of demographic you get around 20%. The true average is thus hard to establish as almost all existing studies has biased sampling from all of those factors.

Huh. I think I've run into the same 20-30% figures a lot and just sort of filed them as Internet fact in the back of my head. It's heartwarming to know that actual studies put the number around 0,5-3%

It doesn't take much thought to figure out why the 20-30% numbers are trumpeted loud and wide: The implications are nasty and visceral and when there's a number like that you feel like there's a point behind it, so you start to wonder. Of course, it's the same as with any fear peddler; if you get an emotional response to a news that seems to touch your life, you can be pretty sure you're being sold snake oil for someone else's benefit.

Why not take the message of this research in a positive manner: Of those who suspect false paternity, less than a third are correct.

I suspect that it isn't just an "internet fact" (something made up and then copied so many times it starts to look more truthful because of how many times it is seen, because not all those sources can be wrong can they?).

The higher figures may well be real, but have been taken from biased sources. If the figures come from paternity testing lab results then you are automatically biasing the data towards those that are suspicious of a paternity matter due to other correlated factors. People with no such suspicions are excluded from the results because they don't take the tests, and they would pull the average figure down if they took part in a test (but why would they think to?).

> If the figures come from paternity testing lab results then you are automatically

> biasing the data towards those that are suspicious

Testing labs also have a vested interest in spreading inflated stats.

There is one or two internet communities that would likely have an interest in spreading this "internet fact"

True. Though that doesn't mean the figure didn't have some basis in truth, just with a collection of caveats (that those groups chose to, err, not confuse their sheep with).

It makes sense that it would be hard to get reliable data on this: Paternity testing labs would be biased towards people who were suspicious; studies requiring informed consent would be biased against people with something to hide; and any study at a hospital or suchlike would be biased by patient demographics.

We have twice as many female ancestors as male. That's not a myth. It's an uncomfortable truth.

Citation?

Also, why an "uncomfortable" truth? Doesn't bother me in the slightest. I suspect there's an axe being ground here.

New York Times The Missing Men in Your Family Tree, 2007 You might be right. My partner got herself pregnant by another man and tried to convince me that I was the father. If the woman who you thought loved you did this to you, it might bother you slightly.

I feel like there might be a significant difference in emotional response for false paternity ten generations up your family tree versus instances that affect you personally.

Fair. My understanding is that in each generation HALF of the males have their genes exterminated. In "12 Rules for Life", Jordan Peterson says that human female choosiness is the reason why humans evolved faster than chimpanzees, so I guess this is for the best.

I suspect this is why rates of male suicide are so much higher than female suicide. Why bother to live if you are genetically unfit?

Women know this. I suspect this is why the rates of postpartum depression in women is nearly twice as high when the baby is a boy. They know there is a high probability that their baby is destined for a life of suffering.

Peterson is a hack, and 12 rules is trash. Don't get taken in by that crap.

Yeah. Personally, I think Peterson is in the business of offering false hope to the condemned. A useful service to the elites. But the evidence is the evidence. Suppressing the truth is not a good long term strategy in the age of the internet.

Do you really think "false hope" is more common than "false hopelessness"?

Have you experienced having a woman you loved and who genuinely seemed to be in love with you get pregnant by another man and try to convince you that you that you are father?

There is nothing "false" about the hopelessness that you feel when this happens to you.

Do you not realize your reality might be a bit warped by this life altering event?

~50% of males have their genes exterminated each generation.

Their experience of reality is probably very different than yours.

That does not mean that their reality is not real.

If you are not part of this group, congrats on winning the genetic lottery.

Their reality may indeed seem very “warped” to you.

But the probability is high that either your sons or your grandsons will experience this warped reality as well.

Ok, but could you please not post unsubstantive comments to HN? There's no information here, just name-calling.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Women know this.

Do they?

Of course they do. Females are hypergamous. Through no fault of their own they have been genetically programmed by evolution to desire the highest status males. Studies have shown that women rank 80% of the men on dating sites as "below average".

It is understandable why people would downvote an emotionally sensitive issue like this, but suppressing the truth is not a good long term strategy.

> (females) have been genetically programmed by evolution to desire the highest status males.

You do know that this is not a good reason to declare most males to be beyond hope, I assume? Status signals and impressions are highly pliable. And the more self-aware "females" (...Why not just say 'women', I wonder?) are about what drives their attraction from that POV, the more you can actively play with and subvert that dynamic. It's loads of fun, actually!

Yes. There is an entire industry devoted to teaching men how to trick women into having sex with them.

If you just want to gratify yourself, there is plenty of opportunity.

I don’t think that any of that will change the 50% rate of extermination of men.

your statement about suicide is incorrect. Females actually attempt suicide more often than males, but males tend to use methods which are more likely to succeed.

I don't mean in any way to downplay the genuinely deep suffering experienced by many women, but everyone knows that many such attempts are cries for help rather than genuine attempts.

The fact is that men successfully kill themselves at much higher rates across all cultures.

Since men can father more children than women can bear, the numerical ratio of fathers to mothers is skewed in favor of mothers. Another way of looking at it is that people are more likely to share a father than a mother.

All men combined have the same number of children as all women combined. A man can have more than a woman, but only if some other man has fewer. E.g., dies young.

This should be labelled 2005, as indicated in the footer and by the text irself that references events in 2005.

Don’t know why the copyright statement on the first page says 2002, that’s a bit weird.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com