Shortpacked! by David Willis

Discussion (30) ¬

1. 
   Nifar

   April 28, 2010 at 2:02 am | # | Reply

   And great theater. Don’t forget great theater.

   • 
     Thomas

     April 26, 2011 at 10:37 pm | # | Reply

     This is how Neil Patrick Harris was born.

     Neil Patrick Harris is a god.

     • 
       Quantum Polagnus

       June 2, 2011 at 1:05 pm | # | Reply

       I totally agree with that statement, good sir!
     • 
       Lollertron

       July 13, 2011 at 9:33 am | # | Reply

       There is nothing I can say besides . . . YES. Just . . . YES.
     • 
       Aesurru

       November 13, 2011 at 10:33 pm | # | Reply

       Fo’ Shizzle.
     • 
       Iceheartt

       May 11, 2012 at 10:08 am | # | Reply

       If you ever look up Broadway Isn’t For Gays Anymore [or happened to actually see it] this will only be reinforced that he is, in fact, a god.
2. 
   Joe

   May 31, 2010 at 1:51 pm | # | Reply

   Also, he needed someone to keep us straight guys from doing something truly stupid when we escape from our wives for a moment.
3. 
   Mycroft

   June 5, 2010 at 4:04 pm | # | Reply

   I know you mean “are sadly forced to be briefly parted from” our wives.
4. 
   Zefu

   November 29, 2010 at 11:45 am | # | Reply

   I love it when Leslie says “frak”
5. 
   Pandaburn

   November 29, 2010 at 3:19 pm | # | Reply

   This statistic supports the argument for environmental cause of homosexuality right? I mean, having older brothers doesn’t change your genetics, and having sons doesn’t change what genes you pass on, right? How interesting.

   • 
     The E-man

     December 3, 2010 at 10:58 pm | # | Reply

     Actually, it isn’t an environmental cause. When a woman has a son, supposedly the mother’s body sees the testosterone as a threat and has a reaction. The mother’s body’s reaction increases with each boy she has, affecting their testosterone. It supposedly takes 4-5 older brothers t even make the probability even get close to 50%.

     Links:
     Social Study
     http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jun/27/science/sci-brothers27
     Scientific Study
     http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10771.long

     • 
       Yoto32

       December 20, 2010 at 12:55 am | # | Reply

       Which is funny, because the way Leslie puts it if half the kids are male then the youngest son has about a 350% chance of being gay.

       • 
         AndyB

         January 15, 2011 at 8:49 am | # | Reply

         I’m pretty sure its multiplicative not additive.
         In other words, if the mother has a 5% chance of producing a gay son, the second son will have a 7.5% chanc, the third would have 11.25% etc. (using the 50% increase)

         • 
           David Willis

           January 15, 2011 at 9:41 am | # | Reply

           ding ding!
         • 
           Just Another Mathematician

           September 25, 2011 at 9:37 am | # | Reply

           Actually, it’s not that simple. They way you phrase it, you’re following a probability factor that looks like this:
           chance of homosexuality = k((1.5)^n)
           where k = initial probability of a homosexual male child, and n = number of male children.
           Take k = 5% = 0.05 as you state. After 7 male children, you’re looking at a
           .05((1.5)^7) = .8543
           or roughly 85% chance of a homosexual eighth male child. The ninth male then has a probability of over 128% to be homosexual, which clearly is mathematically unsound. Your model would overtake the additive model after 12 children (not a lot in comparison with infinity).
           It is more likely that you could represent it by carving a fraction off of the remaining percent (think 0.1, 0.19, 0.271, in a regressive scale) up to a set value (which for large numbers of male children would approach 100%, or 1):
           chance of heterosexuality = (1 – k)/(p^n)
           where p = the constant increase per child in chances of homosexuality
           as stated by Leslie (who, granted, isn’t really citing much to make her case).

           • 
             Platty

             November 7, 2012 at 1:59 am | # | Reply

             SO YOU WANNA MATH BATTLE?

             Lets do this. Assuming that the average rate of gayness in men is 9.5% (based off my preliminary google results), we will assume that the % Gayness of a firstborn is 9% (slightly guesstimating here, simply because it’s a lot of work to determine average siblingness, and the majority of men do not have older brothers. Think about that for a minute for me. You’ll understand.) Next, let’s assume that the increase constant is the geometric average of 30% and 50% (we’re multiplying here) so we get that it is approximately 39% (again, rounding). Then, plugging in for the chance of heterosexuality starting at 0.91:
             0.91*0.39^(n-1) where n is the number of sons. We can use this formula to calculate the gayness probability for ANY son (note that it is simply a guess, each case is different). I declare that this formula shall hereby be known as the heterosexual formula.

             Thanks for listening.

             TL;DR: 0.91*(0.39)^(n-1)

             • 
               Lis

               May 20, 2013 at 4:22 pm | # | Reply

               guesstimation is an important part of inferential statistics when done correctly
6. 
   1SpacyHammond

   December 27, 2010 at 3:28 pm | # | Reply

   One of the other theories for how it works (and of course I can’t find the citation now) is that women who have lots of kids tend to carry a gene for “really likes having sex with men,” and of course the more kids they have the more likely their sons will inherit that gene…

   • 
     Whitecrow256

     May 12, 2011 at 1:09 am | # | Reply

     That implies there are different genes for “really likes having sex,” “really likes having sex with men,” and “really likes having sex with women.”

     I was about to say that the idea seemed a bit overcomplicated, but then I remembered how many distinct genes have a part in eye color. Thus, instead I rest my comment on a “do we have proof these specific genes exist” note instead of a fallacious “That’s much too complicated a system” note.
7. 
   MikeB

   December 31, 2010 at 7:53 pm | # | Reply

   I have two theories.

   One is an adaptation of the “testosterone attack”. The human brain converts testosterone to estrogen. Perhaps, after the mother has been repeatedly flooded with testosterone, she becomes more efficient at converting it to estrogen; the baby then becomes flooded with estrogen. This might not have any major effects on the baby since, once born, it’s native hormone levels would take over; but it could “tweak” any number of things.

   The other is more of a population defense. If a population grows too fast, it could wipe out the food supply. Or, if a subset of the population grows too fast, it could take over the gene pool without actually conferring a genetic advantage (think: tumor).

   The first one may merely be the mechanism by which the second one works.

   Just my two cents…

   • 
     Dusk

     May 15, 2011 at 12:07 am | # | Reply

     For what it’s worth, I’ve heard your first theory stated almost word-for-word as the reason for this phenomenon.
   • 
     Wazza

     July 8, 2011 at 10:46 am | # | Reply

     my personal hypothesis is that it’s a form of primitive eusociality. Basically, the older brothers have kids, and the younger brothers help out with raising them and feeding them, since they’re not doing anything that will make kids of their own. In Fiji, as a f’rinstance, gay guys often work in childcare, and they’re really good at it. Kids from a genetic line with this tendency would be more likely to survive, so the tendency to produce some gay kids, after the straight kids are born, would be selected for.
8. 
   RandomGirl

   February 1, 2011 at 1:15 am | # | Reply

   I laughed so loud when I read the first words… I happen to be watching the show at the same time!
9. 
   Tristan J

   April 6, 2011 at 11:10 pm | # | Reply

   Being neither a biologist of any description nor a psychologist of any description, I have no theories.
10. 
    arjay2813

    October 1, 2011 at 1:26 am | # | Reply

    my family messed that up: my oldest brother is straight and my younger older brother is gay, and I am not, so i suppose we are both the rule and exception to what leslie says

    • 
      dcmeserve

      March 8, 2013 at 9:39 am | # | Reply

      Remember the “rule” is about probabilities, so your case is not an exception. Of course, neither does it constitute proof, in isolation.
11. 
    Wackd

    November 10, 2011 at 8:22 pm | # | Reply

    So….what does this mean for Joyce?

    • 
      Wackd

      November 10, 2011 at 8:23 pm | # | Reply

      Ah. “If you’re a guy.” Gotcha.

      Wait a second.

      http://www.itswalky.com/d/20030320.html

      Suddenly everything makes sense.
12. 
    Mikehatesyou

    February 12, 2012 at 6:32 am | # | Reply

    I assume most of you have several older brothers.
13. 
    Myrryr

    July 4, 2012 at 10:33 pm | # | Reply

    Huh. Here I am the eldest brother and I’m not really sure what the fuck my sexuality is.