MixedNuts comments on 2011 Survey Results - Less Wrong

94 Post author: Yvain 05 December 2011 10:49AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (513)

Sort By: Popular

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: MixedNuts 05 December 2011 01:32:22AM 14 points [-]

Yes. Being first-born is correlated with having few siblings, which is correlated with parents with low fertility, which is genetically inherited from grandparents with low fertility, which is correlated with your parents having few siblings, which is correlated with them being first-born.

Comment author: Zack_M_Davis 05 December 2011 04:24:25AM *  8 points [-]

is correlated with [...] which is correlated with [...] which is genetically inherited from [...] which is correlated with

I agree with your conclusion that the heritability of firstbornness is nonzero, but I'm not sure this reasoning is valid. (Pearson) correlation is not, in general, transitive: if X is correlated with Y and Y is correlated with Z, it does not necessarily follow that X is correlated with Z unless the squares of the correlation coefficients between X and Y and between Y and Z sum to more than one.

Actually calculating the heritability of firstbornness turns out to be a nontrivial math problem. For example, while it is obvious that having few siblings is correlated with being firstborn, it's not obvious to me exactly what that correlation coefficient should be, nor how to calculate it from first principles. When I don't know how to solve a problem from first principles, my first instinct is to simulate it, so I wrote a short script to calculate the Pearson correlation between number of siblings and not-being-a-firstborn for a population where family size is uniformly distributed on the integers from 1 to n. It turns out that the correlation decreases as n gets larger (from [edited:] ~0.5[8] for n=[2] to ~0.3[1] for n=50), which fact probably has an obvious-in-retrospect intuitive explanation which I am somehow having trouble articulating explicitly ...

Ultimately, however, other priorities prevent me from continuing this line of inquiry at the present moment.

Comment author: dbaupp 06 December 2011 12:36:21AM 2 points [-]

Pearson correlation between number of siblings and not-being-a-firstborn for a population where family size is uniformly distributed on the integers from 1 to n [...] ~0.57 for n=1

I'm confused: does this make sense for n=1? (Your code suggests that that should be n=2, maybe?)

Comment author: Zack_M_Davis 06 December 2011 01:29:59AM *  0 points [-]

You're right, thanks; I had [also] made an off-by-one error.