I just stumbled onto two amusing articles, Ancient legends once walked among early humans?, and The discovery of material evidence of a distinct hominin lineage in Central Asia as recently as 30,000 years ago is no surprise. The second is a letter from a folklorist:

Sir, The discovery of material evidence of a distinct hominin lineage in Central Asia as recently as 30,000 years ago (report, Mar 25) does not come as a surprise to those who have looked at the historical and anecdotal evidence of “wild people” inhabiting the region. The evidence stretches from Herodotus to the present day. The Russian historian Boris Porshnev suggested that they are relict Neanderthals, although the lack of evidence of material culture suggests a type closer to Home erectus.

Needless to say many are skeptical of folk memories persisting for 30,000 years, though a standard assumption in paleontology is that the earliest and last fossil find of any given species is going to underestimate their period of origin and overestimate the period of extinction. In other words the Denisova hominin lineage almost certainly persisted more recently than 41,000 years ago. But recently enough to spawn legends of Enkidu? I’m skeptical. Someone with a better grasp of the mutation rate in oral history can clarify, but it seems that tall tales would be so distorted over a few thousand years that the initial kernel of truth would quickly be obscured.

Here’s my model for why almost all cultures have tales of various semi-human groups: cross-cultural differences are stark enough that it isn’t too hard to dehumanize other populations. More specifically, I think the biggest gap is going to be between groups who practice different modes of production. Many of the “wild people” as perceived by agriculturalists were probably just marginalized hunter-gatherers who hadn’t taken up the ways of “humans.” Consider how many upper middle class white Americans perceive rural people from Appalachia even in our enlightened age. There are even biological differences, as agricultural populations seem smaller and more gracile in comparison to hunter-gatherers (who consume more fibrous food stuffs, and probably have a more balanced nutritional intake). How hard is to conceive of a small and malnourished agriculturalist being cowed by more robust hunter-gatherer group upon first contact?*

Combine real cultural and biological differences with human imagination, and it seems that this is the most likely explanation for the universality of wild people and strange semi-human folk. It is in other words simply an aspect of evoked culture, nothing that needs special triggers in the form of other human lineages. The main exception I can think of would be Flores Hobbits, who may have persisted down to a very recent period.

* The immediate objection to this possibility is that hunter-gatherer groups tend to get sick very quickly with the approach of high density humanity, and already pushed to less productive land by the time they’re confronting the agriculturists on a daily basis. So they are less likely to be robust.

Having just adopted Happy from Austin Pets Alive!, I'm delighted to feature a shelter in this week's edition of the Science of Kissing Gallery. Paige Miller with Salt Lake County Animal Services submitted her photo of a volunteer socializing Teddy--a gorgeous pitt bull looking for his forever home. Of course, dogs make a notable appearance in The Science of Kissing and to those considering a new best friend, I highly recommend adopting from your local shelter! Submit your original photo or artwork for consideration in the gallery here.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Happy Father’s Day to all the dad’s out there!

We have some data that in fact older generations were more sexually promiscuous, contrary to the moral panic perpetually ascendant. As a follow up to my previous post, there is some scholarship which suggests that misattributed paternity rates have been declining. Recent decline in nonpaternity rates: a cross-temporal meta-analysis:

Nonpaternity (i.e., discrepant biological versus social fatherhood) affects many issues of interests to psychologists, including familial dynamics, interpersonal relationships, sexuality, and fertility, and therefore represents an important topic for psychological research. The advent of modern contraceptive methods, particularly the market launch of the birth-control pill in the early 1960s and its increased use ever since, should have affected rates of nonpaternity (i.e., discrepant genetic and social fatherhood). This cross-temporal meta-analysis investigated whether there has been a recent decline in nonpaternity rates in the western industrialized nations. The eligible database comprised 32 published samples unbiased towards nonpaternity for which nonoverlapping data from more than 24,000 subjects from nine (mostly Anglo-Saxon heritage) countries with primarily Caucasian populations are reported. Publication years ranged from 1932 to 1999, and estimated years of the reported nonpaternity events (i.e., the temporal occurrence of nonpaternity) ranged from 1895 to 1993. In support of the hypothesis, weighted meta-regression models showed a significant decrease (r = -.41) of log-transformed nonpaternity rates with publication years and also a decrease, albeit not significant (r = -.17), with estimated years of nonpaternity events. These results transform into an estimated absolute decline in untransformed nonpaternity rates of 0.83% and 0.91% per decade, respectively. Across studies, the mean (and median) nonpaternity rate was 3.1% (2.1%). This estimate is consistent with estimates of 2 to 3% from recent reviews on the topic that were based on fewer primary studies. This estimate also rebuts the beliefs and hearsay data widespread among both the public and researchers which contend nonpaternity rates in modern populations might be as high as about 10%.

I don’t have academic access, so I can’t say much more than that (if someone wants to email me the paper, contactgnxp -at – gmail -dot- com will work). Obviously I don’t think this is implausible on the face it; the “good old days” were often a lot less “good” than we remember (or what our elders remember and tell us).

Addendum: If you are from the cuckold enthusiast community, yes, I am aware that your perspective on whether the good old days were good may differ….

An urban myth, often asserted with a wink & a nod in some circles, is that a very high proportion of children in Western countries are not raised by their biological father, and in fact are not aware that their putative biological father is not their real biological father. The numbers I see and hear vary, but 10% is a low bound. People are generally not convinced when I point out that this would mean that nearly 30% of paternal grandfathers are not paternal grandfathers. Most of my scientist acquaintances fancy up the myth by suggesting that they received this datum from research on family groups (where you have to take into account the error introduced by paternity misattribution) or organ matching for purposes of donation.

Evolutionary biologist Marlene Zuk has some informal survey data which she presents in an article in The Los Angeles Times:

With DNA tests now widely available, so-called paternity fraud has become a staple of talk shows and TV crime series. Aggrieved men accuse tearful wives who profess their fidelity, only to have their extramarital affairs brought to light. Billboards in Chicago and other cities provocatively ask, “Paternity questions?” and advise that the answers are for sale at your local pharmacy in the form of at-home DNA paternity tests. Some fathers’-rights groups in Australia have called for mandatory paternity testing of all children at birth, with or without the mother’s consent or even her knowledge.

And people are pretty well convinced there is a need for all this vigilance. When asked to estimate the frequency of misassigned paternity in the general population, most people hazard a guess of 10%, 20% or even 30%, with the last number coming from a class of biology undergraduates in a South Carolina university that I polled last year. I pointed out that this would mean that nearly 20 people in the class of 60-some students had lived their lives calling the wrong man Dad, at least biologically. They just nodded cynically, undaunted. Even scientists will quickly respond with the 10% figure, as a geneticist colleague of mine who studies the male sex chromosome found when he queried fellow biologists at conferences.

What are the real numbers? Zuck asserts that they’re more in the 1-5% range, with 3.7% being a high-bound figure for one study. This varies by culture and socioeconomic group, and the segment of the population being surveyed. Studies which rely on a data set consisting of men who have requested paternity tests are strongly sample biased toward those who have a reason to have suspicions. It’s somewhat like some of the critiques of the Kinsey Reports and deviant sexual behavior; if you survey sexual deviants (however you define that) to get a sense of the proportion of deviancy in the population you’re going to get a higher than representative figure. And yet even in the cases of men who have suspicions only a minority have misattributed paternity.

What is this telling us? As I said above my own interactions are with people of generally liberal inclinations and values, and the high paternity uncertainty numbers aren’t offered up as evidence of the lascivious nature of women or the degraded state of modern morals. Rather they’re presented as evidence of gender equality, sexual liberation, and a generally praiseworthy reflection on the weak emphasis of genetic ties as the root of the parenting bond. But what if both assessments (positive and negative) of perceived low paternity confidence emerge from the same evolutionary psychological bias: to weigh false positives much more highly than false negatives in terms of plausibility. In other words, it doesn’t hurt to be suspicious about something as important as paternity in fatherhood (from an evolutionary perspective; something which is going to be generalized across the kin group, not just for the male in question). More generally it doesn’t hurt to be suspicious or a little over-active in your imagination as a rule. This is one of the major models for why people see supernatural agents all around them, it’s evidence of an over-active agency detection module in your brain which incurs minimal cost for false positives (waste a lot of time propitiating ghosts and gods) in comparison to the deleterious consequences for false negatives (you ignore the threat of a dangerous animal or a hostile tribal band and get killed).

Since I’ve only presented assertion so far, let me point to one of the most thorough cross-cultural studies I’ve stumbled upon, How Well Does Paternity Confidence Match Actual Paternity?:

This survey of published estimates of nonpaternity suggests that for men with high paternity confidence, nonpaternity rates are typically 1.7% (if we exclude studies of unknown methodology) to 3.3% (if we include such studies). These figures are substantially lower than the “typical” nonpaternity rate of 10% or higher cited by many researchers, often without substantiation…or the median worldwide nonpaternity rate of 9% reported by Baker and Bellis…

Men who have low paternity confidence and have chosen to challenge their paternity through laboratory testing are much less likely than men with high paternity confidence to be the fathers of their putative children. Although these men presumably have lower paternity confidence than men who do not seek paternity tests, this group is heterogeneous; some men may be virtually certain that the putative child is not theirs, while others may simply have sufficient doubts to warrant testing. Most of these men are in fact the fathers of their putative genetic children; only 29.8% could be excluded as biological fathers of the children in question.

To me it’s striking that the majority of the men who have low paternity confidence and suspicion enough to submit to a paternity laboratory are still the biological fathers of their offspring! In fact, the rates of non-paternity among this set is closer to the urban myth proportions found among the lay public. Of course it is this set of men who show up on the Jerry Springer show, not men confident in their paternity, so the public may be getting a false cultural picture of frequencies which they’re projecting.

Since you want data, here are the relevant tables.

Obviously there’s some variation. The rule of thumb seems to be that males of higher socioeconomic status, and from more conventionally bourgeois societies, have greater warranted paternity confidence. Lower paternity confidence among those who are the principals for sensational media shouldn’t be surprising then. But if you’re a Bayesian you should “update” accordingly (if you know what Bayesian probability is, you are probably the type of person who shouldn’t worry*).

In fact, from what I know about contemporary genetic genealogy they’re reinforcing the the idea that when paternity confidence is high, it is high for a reason. Men who are interested in their patrilineage often get their Y chromosomes sequenced, and it turns out that in societies such as England where surnames have a relatively deep history in some families (generally high socioeconomic status ones) the vast majority of men share the same male ancestor hundreds of years in the past. The balance share many different other male ancestors (usually following a power law distribution) . What’s going on is that each generation some males will have misattributed paternity, so the original male with a particular Y chromosome and surname will pass on the surname, but not the Y chromosome. The disjunction between these two in a given generation from t = 0 can be used to infer approximate rates of cuckoldry. If for example only 1% of males in each generation are from genetic lineages outside of the primary one assumed in their family, then after 100 generations only 37% of males will be from the original lineage to which the surname was associated. In contrast if you assume a 10% figure then it will only take 10 generations to reach an equivalent proportion (10 generations is about 250 years, which is a short enough time period so that many males from Western nations could track their male ancestor and their distant relatives relatively easily through parish records, so these back-of-the-envelopes are easily checkable now).

With the spread of genetic sequencing for recreational and health reasons arguments by some groups for mandatory paternity testing will seem quaint as the information will be available as a matter of course. Nevertheless there is going to be the conventional hand-wring from bioethicists as to whether to share the data, in part to preserve the family unit. Here’s a somewhat dated survey result from 1998:

….On the issue of misattributed paternity, two thirds of US medical geneticists would not disclose this information to a woman’s partner, even if he asks, because the disclosure might jeopardize the marriage or endanger the woman. In contrast, three quarters of potential counselees believe that the physician should give this information to a partner who requests it, after informing the woman of the intent to do so…Possibly, the counselees presume that the unit of confidentiality is the family, not the individual, or are less aware of potential adverse consequences of disclosure.

In an interesting coda to this story, barring government action to make this information unavailable without professional assistance (I’m skeptical that this would happen), the ubiquity of genetic testing no matter its utility in the near future will make these disclosures by professionals only selectively relevant. If you’re intelligent it shouldn’t be that hard to analyze the data, skim the results, or find someone willing to do so for a nominal sum (I’m assuming there will be software which will do a lot of the analysis of your raw sequence which you can input from a file yourself). But it is the less intelligent and unsure who are the ones who have to worry most about paternity uncertainty, and the ones least likely or unable to understand the clear confirmation of misattributed paternity in the data (I’ve seen some papers which claim that some fathers who know their child has a recessive disease, and also find out they’re not a carrier of the recessively expressed allele, still can’t connect the dots!).**

* Yes, I’m making a normative assumption here that if you’re male you should be displeased if you find out that children whom you assumed were your biological offspring turn out not to be. If, on the other hand, you think it’s fun and adds more zest to your life, you’re just kind of weird. Sorry if I sound prejudiced, but I know that the cuckold community is going to link to this post, so I’m hoping you guys don’t start leaving angry comments for disabusing you of your fantasies, as has occurred before when I post on this.

** By the way, if misattributed paternity was very common in the past because men didn’t care one would assume that evolutionary pressures would have selected against it until it was rare. So if the urban myth figure was correct, it would be relatively new, or, there’s no heritable trait associated with getting cuckolded and it happened in a scattershot fashion across the population.

Citation: Anderson, K. (2006). How Well Does Paternity Confidence Match Actual Paternity? Evidence from Worldwide Nonpaternity Rates Current Anthropology, 47 (3), 513-520 DOI: 10.1086/504167