And great theater. Don’t forget great theater.
This is how Neil Patrick Harris was born.
Neil Patrick Harris is a god.
I totally agree with that statement, good sir!
There is nothing I can say besides . . . YES. Just . . . YES.
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.
Also, he needed someone to keep us straight guys from doing something truly stupid when we escape from our wives for a moment.
I know you mean “are sadly forced to be briefly parted from” our wives.
I love it when Leslie says “frak”
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.
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%.
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.
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)
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).
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.
guesstimation is an important part of inferential statistics when done correctly
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…
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.
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…
For what it’s worth, I’ve heard your first theory stated almost word-for-word as the reason for this phenomenon.
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.
I laughed so loud when I read the first words… I happen to be watching the show at the same time!
Being neither a biologist of any description nor a psychologist of any description, I have no theories.
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
Remember the “rule” is about probabilities, so your case is not an exception. Of course, neither does it constitute proof, in isolation.
So….what does this mean for Joyce?
Ah. “If you’re a guy.” Gotcha.
Wait a second.
Suddenly everything makes sense.
I assume most of you have several older brothers.
Huh. Here I am the eldest brother and I’m not really sure what the fuck my sexuality is.
NAME — Get a Gravatar
NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
©2005-2013 David Willis | Powered by WordPress with ComicPress
| Subscribe: RSS
| Back to Top ↑