Most men did reproduce in history (1:17-rule is a myth)

[AlexAP]

Many users here have repeated a story that was spread among newspapers that said: In the Neolithic (8000 years ago), only 1 men reproduced for 17 women.

8,000 Years Ago, 17 Women Reproduced for Every One Man

An analysis of modern DNA uncovers a rough dating scene after the advent of agriculture.

psmag.com

It's one of the key "blackpills" in the PSL community: Most men never reproduced. But the truth is that most men actually did reproduce in history. This can be proven through the Y-Chromosome and the autosomal DNA.

The Y-Chromosome is inherited from every male to his offspring. You have exactly the same Y-Chromosome as your father, your grandfather, your grand-grandfather, etc. (The female equivalent is the mitochondrial DNA, it's inherited from every female to her offspring.)

The autosomal DNA is the whole DNA that you inherit from both mother and father.

The people who made up the 1:17-myth just looked at the Y-Chromosomes who exist in todays population and saw that most of them couldn't be traced back to the Neolithic (while most of the mitochondrial DNA of todays humans can be traced back to that time), meaning that most men from that time don't have ancestors living today. Their explanation was: Most men didn't reproduce at that time.

But the real explanation for this is: Most Neolithic men did reproduce, but their lineages died off over the centuries and millennia.

Why did so many more lineages died off than female lineages? The reason can be called the Genghis Khan effect (I made this term up): Imagine there is one powerful man, let's say a king, who takes 100 wives. His sons become powerful too and they will impregnate more than one woman. The first king will have enormous reproductive success, his Y-Chromosome will definitely survive over the time. Not only because of him taking 100 wives, but also because his sons will be probably reproducing with 3-5 women on average.

The Y-Chromosome that Genghis Khan had has about 16 million descendants today:

Genghis Khan a Prolific Lover, DNA Data Implies

Genghis Khan, the fearsome Mongolian warrior of the 13th century, may have done more than rule the largest empire in the world; according to a recently published genetic study, he may have helped populate it too.

www.nationalgeographic.com

One Irish king from the 5th century has 3 million descendants today, most of them in the US:

Over Three Million People Are Descended From Legendary Irish High king

As many as 3 million people worldwide are descended from the legendary Irish high king Niall of the Nine Hostages.

extra.ie

However, the fact that there are so many men with the king's Y-Chromosome means that everytime they reproduce, it's the same lineage, genetically speaking. But in every generation, a few Y-Chromosomes die off, because even if 90% of men reproduce, 10% do not. This means: Many of the Thousands of Thousands of the king's descendants will "absorb" other lineages when they reproduce.

There is no equivalent effect for women. No women had 100+ kids (and them all having 10+ kids). Therefore, the female lineages have a much higer chance to survive over the centuries and millennia. Basically, there were no big lineages who absorbed many other, smaller lineages over centuries and millennia. In general, there is twice more mitochondrial DNA in todays humans than Y-Chromosomes.

The proof for this explanation is the autosomal DNA. As said above, the autosomal DNA is the whole DNA that humans inherit from both mother and father. And the autosomal DNA diversity observed in humans did not decline much since the Neolithic.

Another hint for the fact that most men did reproduce in history is the fact that there is no observed society in which a few men monopolized reproduction. Not in the prehistoric societies that still exist today, not in the islamic societies which allow polygamy, and not in any other. It's clear that in every society, most men did reproduce. It was never only the top 5-10% (or "Chad only").

 

[Deleted member 756]

Still applicable today tbh

 

[AlexAP]

It's clear that in every society, most men did reproduce. It was never only the top 5-10% (or "Chad only").

 

[isis_Bleach]

Women s opinion didn’t matter back then so they didn’t have the opportunity to go for chad

 

[AlexAP]

Women s opinion didn’t matter back then so they didn’t have the opportunity to go for chad

Yes, rape was more common for sure.

And it would never have happened that the majority of men would have accepted to get no woman, they would have killed all the top 5-10% men in that case.

 

[mulattomaxxer]

Life fuel thread. The 1 to 17 rule was role fuel

 

[Looks234]

Another reason why to never take anything aspies say here serious

 

[fras]

Many users here have repeated a story that was spread among newspapers that said: In the Neolithic (8000 years ago), only 1 men reproduced for 17 women.

8,000 Years Ago, 17 Women Reproduced for Every One Man

An analysis of modern DNA uncovers a rough dating scene after the advent of agriculture.

psmag.com

It's one of the key "blackpills" in the PSL community: Most men never reproduced. But the truth is that most men actually did reproduce in history. This can be proven through the Y-Chromosome and the autosomal DNA.

The Y-Chromosome is inherited from every male to his offspring. You have exactly the same Y-Chromosome as your father, your grandfather, your grand-grandfather, etc. (The female equivalent is the mitochondrial DNA, it's inherited from every female to her offspring.)

The autosomal DNA is the whole DNA that you inherit from both mother and father.

The people who made up the 1:17-myth just looked at the Y-Chromosomes who exist in todays population and saw that most of them couldn't be traced back to the Neolithic (while most of the mitochondrial DNA of todays humans can be traced back to that time), meaning that most men from that time don't have ancestors living today. Their explanation was: Most men didn't reproduce at that time.

But the real explanation for this is: Most Neolithic men did reproduce, but their lineages died off over the centuries and millennia.

Why did so many more lineages died off than female lineages? The reason can be called the Genghis Khan effect (I made this term up): Imagine there is one powerful man, let's say a king, who takes 100 wives. His sons become powerful too and they will impregnate more than one woman. The first king will have enormous reproductive success, his Y-Chromosome will definitely survive over the time. Not only because of him taking 100 wives, but also because his sons will be probably reproducing with 3-5 women on average.

The Y-Chromosome that Genghis Khan had has about 16 million descendants today:

Genghis Khan a Prolific Lover, DNA Data Implies

Genghis Khan, the fearsome Mongolian warrior of the 13th century, may have done more than rule the largest empire in the world; according to a recently published genetic study, he may have helped populate it too.

www.nationalgeographic.com

One Irish king from the 5th century has 3 million descendants today, most of them in the US:

Over Three Million People Are Descended From Legendary Irish High king

As many as 3 million people worldwide are descended from the legendary Irish high king Niall of the Nine Hostages.

extra.ie

However, the fact that there are so many men with the king's Y-Chromosome means that everytime they reproduce, it's the same lineage, genetically speaking. But in every generation, a few Y-Chromosomes die off, because even if 90% of men reproduce, 10% do not. This means: Many of the Thousands of Thousands of the king's descendants will "absorb" other lineages when they reproduce.

There is no equivalent effect for women. No women had 100+ kids (and them all having 10+ kids). Therefore, the female lineages have a much higer chance to survive over the centuries and millennia. Basically, there were no big lineages who absorbed many other, smaller lineages over centuries and millennia. In general, there is twice more mitochondrial DNA in todays humans than Y-Chromosomes.

The proof for this explanation is the autosomal DNA. As said above, the autosomal DNA is the whole DNA that humans inherit from both mother and father. And the autosomal DNA diversity observed in humans did not decline much since the Neolithic.

Another hint for the fact that most men did reproduce in history is the fact that there is no observed society in which a few men monopolized reproduction. Not in the prehistoric societies that still exist today, not in the islamic societies which allow polygamy, and not in any other. It's clear that in every society, most men did reproduce. It was never only the top 5-10% (or "Chad only").

Giga high IQ thread. When I was confronted with these frauded statistics, I noticed that this supposed „1 in 17 rule“ didn’t apply to Africa. What is your theory on this?

 

[Slasher]

Many users here have repeated a story that was spread among newspapers that said: In the Neolithic (8000 years ago), only 1 men reproduced for 17 women.

8,000 Years Ago, 17 Women Reproduced for Every One Man

An analysis of modern DNA uncovers a rough dating scene after the advent of agriculture.

psmag.com

It's one of the key "blackpills" in the PSL community: Most men never reproduced. But the truth is that most men actually did reproduce in history. This can be proven through the Y-Chromosome and the autosomal DNA.

The Y-Chromosome is inherited from every male to his offspring. You have exactly the same Y-Chromosome as your father, your grandfather, your grand-grandfather, etc. (The female equivalent is the mitochondrial DNA, it's inherited from every female to her offspring.)

The autosomal DNA is the whole DNA that you inherit from both mother and father.

The people who made up the 1:17-myth just looked at the Y-Chromosomes who exist in todays population and saw that most of them couldn't be traced back to the Neolithic (while most of the mitochondrial DNA of todays humans can be traced back to that time), meaning that most men from that time don't have ancestors living today. Their explanation was: Most men didn't reproduce at that time.

But the real explanation for this is: Most Neolithic men did reproduce, but their lineages died off over the centuries and millennia.

Why did so many more lineages died off than female lineages? The reason can be called the Genghis Khan effect (I made this term up): Imagine there is one powerful man, let's say a king, who takes 100 wives. His sons become powerful too and they will impregnate more than one woman. The first king will have enormous reproductive success, his Y-Chromosome will definitely survive over the time. Not only because of him taking 100 wives, but also because his sons will be probably reproducing with 3-5 women on average.

The Y-Chromosome that Genghis Khan had has about 16 million descendants today:

Genghis Khan a Prolific Lover, DNA Data Implies

Genghis Khan, the fearsome Mongolian warrior of the 13th century, may have done more than rule the largest empire in the world; according to a recently published genetic study, he may have helped populate it too.

www.nationalgeographic.com

One Irish king from the 5th century has 3 million descendants today, most of them in the US:

Over Three Million People Are Descended From Legendary Irish High king

As many as 3 million people worldwide are descended from the legendary Irish high king Niall of the Nine Hostages.

extra.ie

However, the fact that there are so many men with the king's Y-Chromosome means that everytime they reproduce, it's the same lineage, genetically speaking. But in every generation, a few Y-Chromosomes die off, because even if 90% of men reproduce, 10% do not. This means: Many of the Thousands of Thousands of the king's descendants will "absorb" other lineages when they reproduce.

There is no equivalent effect for women. No women had 100+ kids (and them all having 10+ kids). Therefore, the female lineages have a much higer chance to survive over the centuries and millennia. Basically, there were no big lineages who absorbed many other, smaller lineages over centuries and millennia. In general, there is twice more mitochondrial DNA in todays humans than Y-Chromosomes.

The proof for this explanation is the autosomal DNA. As said above, the autosomal DNA is the whole DNA that humans inherit from both mother and father. And the autosomal DNA diversity observed in humans did not decline much since the Neolithic.

Another hint for the fact that most men did reproduce in history is the fact that there is no observed society in which a few men monopolized reproduction. Not in the prehistoric societies that still exist today, not in the islamic societies which allow polygamy, and not in any other. It's clear that in every society, most men did reproduce. It was never only the top 5-10% (or "Chad only").

If You Posted This On Incels.is They'd Get Mad As Fuck JFL.

 

[oldcelloser]

cope
most men DIDNtT reproduce as wars were goin going on every 2 years in pre modern history and those low iq males were fighting for the elites and for the chance to PROVE themselves to a virgin vagina to outsmart the 10 other competitors for "marriage"
and the high t high iq ones were fighting for the chance of having 100s of vaginas , of course
not to mention high death rates due to the most ordinary diseases around; i can defitely tell it was probs the 80-20 rule, as usual

 

[MiroslavBulldosex]

Yep, you would need to be pretty retarded to believe the "1 in 17" myth, especially at a time where birth control didn't exist

 

[Reckless Turtle]

"Nonetheless, the result points to substantial sex differences in variance of reproductive success. Earlier DNA studies by Wilder and colleagues (2004) estimated the historical sex ratio of reproductive success to be 2:1. Half the branches on a tree of ancestors represent males, but half of the males are repeats. Around 80% of women, but only 40% of men (i.e. half as many) have reproduced, or 60%-30% or 70%-35%, depending on child mortality."

 

[AlexAP]

"Nonetheless, the result points to substantial sex differences in variance of reproductive success. Earlier DNA studies by Wilder and colleagues (2004) estimated the historical sex ratio of reproductive success to be 2:1. Half the branches on a tree of ancestors represent males, but half of the males are repeats. Around 80% of women, but only 40% of men (i.e. half as many) have reproduced, or 60%-30% or 70%-35%, depending on child mortality."

Yeah, I already mentioned that:

In general, there is twice more mitochondrial DNA in todays humans than Y-Chromosomes.

But as I explained, a surplus in mitochondrial DNA doesn't mean there were more women who reproduced than men, it's just that their lineages survived over time. The article you posted made the same mistake than the ones who created the 1:17-myth.

 

[AlexAP]

Giga high IQ thread. When I was confronted with these frauded statistics, I noticed that this supposed „1 in 17 rule“ didn’t apply to Africa. What is your theory on this?

It maybe that in other regions, there was more agriculture at that time, so there were more men who got power and had more reproductive success, meaning that their lineages absorbed other lineages over time.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

Yeah, I already mentioned that:

But as I explained, a surplus in mitochondrial DNA doesn't mean there were more women who reproduced than men, it's just that their lineages survived over time. The article you posted made the same mistake than the ones who created the 1:17-myth.

Wouldn't your argument that female lineages were more likely to survive over time prove the point that a disproportionately smaller percentage of the male population had reproductive success compared to the female population?

 

[AlexAP]

Wouldn't your argument that female lineages were more likely to survive over time prove the point that a disproportionately smaller percentage of the male population had reproductive success compared to the female population?

No, as I argued, even if in every generation, 80% of men and women reproduced, it's still possible that more male lineages disappeared over time than female lineages. There is a higher possibility that big male lineages (of powerful men) absorb other male lineages than the same happening with female lineages.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

No, as I argued, even if in every generation, 80% of men and women reproduced, it's still possible that more male lineages disappeared over time than female lineages. There is a higher possibility that big male lineages (of powerful men) absorb other male lineages than the same happening with female lineages.

This is difficult to understand. It seems like you're arguing that a minority of men had disproportionately higher reproductive success (by virtue of you mentioning Ghengis Khan and other "powerful men"). Other men may have been able to reproduce because a lifetime reproduction of one offspring still satisfies that requirement.

 

[tyronelite]

High IQ

 

[AlexAP]

It seems like you're arguing that a minority of men had disproportionately higher reproductive success (by virtue of you mentioning Ghengis Khan and other "powerful men").

Yes, this is proven by the genetical data.

Other men may have been able to reproduce because a lifetime reproduction of one offspring still satisfies that requirement.

Yes, one kid is still one kid. So, most men had descendants, the difference is that many more male lineages died off (in every generation, some lineages die off, for both male and female).

 

[Reckless Turtle]

Yes, this is proven by the genetical data.

Yes, one kid is still one kid. So, most men had descendants, the difference is that many more male lineages died off (in every generation, some lineages die off, for both male and female).

This was what I always assumed from the 1:17 ratio. But you're making me reconsider the statistic of a 40% male reproductive rate.

You do realize that this still implies a significant degree of cuckoldry? What likely ended up happening was that "powerful" men would breed a disproportionate percentage of the most fertile (virginal) women (possibly a few times per female). Then, the mother would transition to a beta provider who would possibly end up having one offspring with her.