[HN Gopher] Preston's Paradox ___________________________________________________________________ Preston's Paradox Author : sebg Score : 42 points Date : 2022-05-16 17:50 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.allendowney.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.allendowney.com) | bo1024 wrote: | There is an extremely important difference between "every woman | has fewer children than her mother" and "on average a woman has | fewer children than her mother". | | You can see that in the first scenario the human race dies out in | about 12 generations as the maximum possible number of children | any woman can have decreases by 1 each generation. | | The second scenario is easily compatible with sustained long-term | population growth. For example each woman initially has four | kids, two of whom are childless and two of whom have four kids, | etc. This doubles the population each generation but on average a | woman has half as many children as her mother (two fewer). | dmurray wrote: | It doubled in the first generation (one woman and presumably | one man produced four kids) | | In the following generation, the population didn't increase. | Four people and their four partners collectively produced eight | kids. | RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: | > Preston concludes, "Those who exhibit the most traditional | behavior with respect to marriage and women's roles will always | be overrepresented as parents of the next generation, and a | perpetual disaffiliation from their model by offspring is | required in order to avert an increase in traditionalism for the | population as a whole." | | This has huge political implications. | pixl97 wrote: | This is why most religions are actually fertility cults of one | type or another. Disobey the fertility cult and you get the | Onan treatment. | | Also this explains why many religions staying power. "Have lots | of kids and teach them your religion". | jimhefferon wrote: | Interesting and new to me, at least. | | There is no place I can see to give feedback. Perhaps the author | reads HN? | | > how many children they have ever born | | Surely "borne"? | ars wrote: | In American English "born" means given birth to, while "borne" | means physically carry something (possibly a child, but not | necessarily). | ziddoap wrote: | In regards to children, as in giving birth, "born" is correct. | | > _Both born and borne are forms of bear. Born is commonly used | with the sense of bear meaning "to give birth." Borne is used | in reference to carrying something (physically or figuratively) | [...]_ [1] | | https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/borne-vs-born-... | gweinberg wrote: | 'and, occasionally, in the "give birth to" sense.' Odd choice | of words to elide. | ev7 wrote: | "Birthed" might be the correct version. | gweinberg wrote: | I think it's actually pretty well known that with a stable | population there are always a lot more people with fewer kids | than their parents have than there are people with more kids. | After all, a decent fraction of people never have any kids at | all, but everyone's parents had to have at least one. | readthenotes1 wrote: | Paradox, or just pointing out human inability to multiply? | SamBam wrote: | Not really a paradox, but also not intuitive. | | If the average number of offspring were 3, and also _every | woman_ had exactly 3 children, then mandating that every woman | has one fewer children than her mother would stabilize the | population in one generation, and wipe it out shortly after. | | The "paradox" happens because of the skewed distribution of | family sizes. | [deleted] | ffhhj wrote: | Maybe the king should have said "1 less _factorial number_ than | the mother ". | swframe2 wrote: | I wonder if there is a more important paradox "wealthy people | trying to increase their wealth will influence government laws so | extremely selfishly that the world will suffer a catastrophic | event that drastically lowers human population." | daxfohl wrote: | Side note is that if the rule is to have exactly the same number | of kids as your mom, then the average asymptotically approaches | the woman of the first generation who has the most kids. | | So the king did better than nothing. | ReactiveJelly wrote: | I missed the part where the paradox was explained. | | If every woman goes from having 3 children to 2, why did the rate | go up? | Strilanc wrote: | Suppose there's 1 woman who had 10 kids, and everyone else had | 3. Everyone then has max kids according to the "1 fewer than | mother" rule. After 5 generations that 1 woman has 10 * 9 * 8 * | 7 * 6 * 5 = 151200 descendants that will each have 4 kids. | Everyone else went extinct several decades ago. So the average | number of children per woman increased from 3 to 4. | B1FF_PSUVM wrote: | Because of the shape of the distribution. | | Those who had >= 4 were sufficiently numerous for the second | generation going to 3.3. | | P.S. also, further iteration is not discussed. Possibly the | average for that particular curve would come down on the second | or third generation. | daxfohl wrote: | Imagine a population of 2 women, one who has 2 children and one | who has 100. Average is 51. Next generation 2 women have 1 | child each and 100 women have 99 each, so the average is about | 98. Eventually it will go down to zero, but initially it goes | up. | alcover wrote: | You're supposing they bear females only ? | daenz wrote: | Because every woman didn't go from 3 to 2. The average was 3. | Some families had 10 and went to 9. | redavni wrote: | To the young people here. Ignore the last line in the article. | | You should never ever allow statistics at this level impact your | decision to start a family. If you are intelligent enough to be | reading an article about statistics on the Internet, please | reproduce. | cryptonector wrote: | This. We're already facing large reductions in population | world-wide due to low fertility. Sure, the overall turning | point is a few decades away, but it's certain, and in many | countries it's in the past. | sidpatil wrote: | Aren't you just citing different statistics? | ACow_Adonis wrote: | when we say the overall turning point is a few decades away, | under most assumptions that don't involve massive war or | pestilence or ecological collapse, even with a substantial | drop in fertility, my child(ren), by the time they are old, | will still be living in a world with higher total population | than the current one. | | we are basically in no risk of running down the population | within any of our lifetime... | | ... on the proviso that everything doesn't go pear- shaped. | | And with a recognition that those risks of things that might | go pear-shaped are probably highly correlated with the | carrying capacity of the planet with regards to human | population numbers. | toolz wrote: | I don't have any good answers here, but it would seem that a | negative consequence of welfare for lower income classes would | have them disproportionately incentivized to have children (as | their welfare would represent a much higher % of their total | income). With this being the case I have to imagine that's a | large contributing factor to associating large families with | lower income and thus it loses the former advantage of large | families being a high status indicator and thus higher income | (and presumably higher intelligence/ better adjusted) families | were responsible for a larger percentage of the population. | | I have no idea what a humane incentive would look like, but I | do wonder if we could find one if giving higher income families | more incentive to reproduce relative to lower income families | (or more directly I'd want to incentivize higher intelligence | and better adjusted families, I just don't know how to measure | that so I use income class to differentiate). | | Presuming in all of this, that it isn't controversial to want | intelligent and adjusted people to be responsible for the lions | share of genetic makeup of future generations. | cryptonector wrote: | Or, you know, reduce welfare and help people get off welfare. | whatshisface wrote: | Well, I guess eugenics is back... It was a nice 100 years. | | Scary "Idiocracy" figures aside, this discussion is | incomplete without the incel statistics. The data is | relatively conclusive that anyone below a certain threshold | has no chance of getting a date - which should be included in | your long-term model of population planning. I think you will | find that all the eugenics you could possibly want is already | happening, the "program" is being administered by everybody, | and the social norms that permit it are unimpeachable. | lr4444lr wrote: | It has little to nothing to do with genes. You want a | productive working class that produces more than it | consumes to support the people who - for whatever reason - | do not. | cryptonector wrote: | You could provide incentives to those who would rather | not produce to straighten up and fly rite. | JadeNB wrote: | > You should never ever allow statistics at this level impact | your decision to start a family. If you are intelligent enough | to be reading an article about statistics on the Internet, | please reproduce. | | I think that reading articles on advanced topics on the | internet at best demonstrates one's self-assessed, not actual, | intelligence. There are more than enough people in the world | who are sure that they're the smart ones. | umvi wrote: | So the _average_ shifts slightly up in the short term because of | whales, but the population still will trend to zero in the long | term. Not really a paradox, just a slightly unexpected short term | statistical anomaly. | renewiltord wrote: | Ah, if a^i_t is the number of children in the t'th generation in | the i'th 'matrilineal line': a^i_t = 0.5 * | k^i_t * a^i_{t-1} * (k^i_t - 1) | | Fertility rate has a quadratic relationship with number of kids | per woman, since half the kids will be women capable of kids | themselves. Whatever, my superscripts are fucked, but the idea is | that the relationship being quadratic means high-birth women are | going to be much more influential than low-birth women and so | linear measures of central tendency don't capture that. | | Cool. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-05-16 23:00 UTC)