Fourteen Percent

Avatar

Burt Likko

Pseudonymous Portlander. Homebrewer. Atheist. Recovering litigator. Recovering Republican. Recovering Catholic. Recovering divorcé. Recovering Former Editor-in-Chief of Ordinary Times. House Likko's Words: Scite Verum. Colite Iusticia. Vivere Con Gaudium.

Related Post Roulette

25 Responses

  1. NobAkimoto NobAkimoto says:

    Thank you Science.Report

  2. This is my favorite bit, indicating a rich, rich sense of delicious irony on the part of the writer and restoring a small portion of my belief in humankind:

    “Cobb declined to fist-bump.”Report

  3. Avatar Mike Schilling says:

    This is fun and all, but I have no idea what “14% sub-Saharan African” means. I don’t believe that 14% of the DNA of Cobb (or anyone on the planet) consists of genes found only in people from that region. Can anyone enlighten me?Report

    • It means he’s like that guy from the Dave Chappelle skit. Only he’s real.Report

    • Avatar Troublesome Frog in reply to Mike Schilling says:

      I think you’re right to be a little skeptical. I don’t think that number is exactly what most people think it is (that 14% of his makeup came from some “pure” African contributer of “African” genes). It seems like it’s more of a distance along one axis of a coordinate system that comes from a PCA (or some other dimensionality reduction trick) of a bunch of genetic data.Report

    • Avatar Kim in reply to Mike Schilling says:

      Meh. I know someone with substantial Neanderthal blood. This could just as easily be the inverse (it’s not, but…)

      You’re looking at genetic biomarkers, certain mutations that come only from certain places.Report

    • Avatar Rod in reply to Mike Schilling says:

      My understanding, and it could very well be flawed, is that mutations amongst the non-coding regions of the genome (the “junk” DNA) tends to be conserved since, being non-coding, it doesn’t affect survival or reproductive success.

      But 14% is an odd number (literally, one seventh) for this sort of thing. To be precisely correct this would require several black ancestors scattered over a few different generations, no?Report

      • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Rod says:

        Sure, you’d need a series of powers of 1/2 that adds up to 14/100. I should make that into a puzzle 🙂Report

      • Avatar Troublesome Frog in reply to Rod says:

        If my understanding is correct, it’s much less concrete than a simple ancestor count. This is hard to describe without getting into the linear algebra, but imagine a coordinate system with two axes. Now imagine we have two genetic markers we’re looking for. We can describe your DNA as being a vector at , , or . Maybe people from one area tend to cluster in one of the four corners while everybody else tends to be in one of the other three. That’s useful for classification. Now imagine a coordinate system with a kajillion axes mapped to a kajillion genetic markers. In that coordinate system, you could plot each person in the world as a vector in that space, and there would be “clusters” everywhere, although a human couldn’t possibly visualize them.

        Most of the axes won’t tell us much (pretty random flat distribution), but some axes will tend to be associated with certain geographical regions, but it’s hard to see because it’s in a kajillion dimensions. There are a lot of ways of dealing with this mathematically, but the ultimate goal is to end up with a new coordinate system with less than a kajillion dimensions, but one that still captures the areas of “interesting” variation. The new axes are (usually linear) combinations of the old axes, which is how you end up with numbers like 14%. We may find that variation along one axis tends to separate people with African ancestry from everybody else, so your distance along that axis is some weighted combination of the presence of genetic markers that were used to create that axis.

        One way to get to the new set of axes would be principal components analysis, but there is a wealth of techniques for separating clusters of data points in high dimensional space. The short version is that, “14% of what?” is a very good question and the answer is likely very subtle–not a percentage of genes or a probability, but a variation along some fairly complex metric.Report

  4. Avatar Glyph says:

    Well, if his attempt to take over Leith fails, he can always try again in Houston.Report

  5. Avatar Damon says:

    I expect that if everyone took the same test we’d all be less than 100% whatever we identify as: white, black, red, yellow, etc. I expect you’d even see similiar reactions from Japanese finding out they have some Korean in them or vice versa, etc.

    No, as to his intention of his desire to “turn that town into a neo-Nazi enclave.” I doubt he’ll have any sucess. We had two neo nazis come into my town when I was growing up (out west-more west than ND). They caused quite a bit of gossip. No one went to their store and they left. I expect folks in ND will react the same.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *