Your doppelgänger is out there and you probably share DNA with them
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Clearly both men have European ancestry so where their parents were born doesn't matter at all. They could have at least traced Malone's parents back a little further. Given the surname you'd expect Irish ancestry which overlaps with Scottish a fair bit.
On the one hand you have those bending over backwards to debunk the "myth" of Irish "slavery" (simple example [0]) by making sure everyone knows it was just indentured servitude where they were beat and killed with impunity and had no freedoms other than the potential to disguise themselves as free men due to their skin color, and if you call them slaves you're perpetuating white supremacist conspiracy theories.
On the other hand you have historical accounts of the Irish being treated identically to slaves [1].
Why? Why are some people so determined to twist history such that only one victim group is allowed? Not saying you're doing this; I am only using your choice of phrasing to bring this up in one of the few places where I might get an honest answer.
[0]: https://interzine.org/2020/10/18/repudiating-the-irish-slave...
[0]:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_Laundries_in_Irela...
If I [or my family] chose it (in exchange for passage, food, and/or opportunities), that feels materially different from my freedom being stolen me without anyone in my family having a choice in the matter and for any of my children to also be non-free.
Apologies if my understanding (from basic US schooling) mismatching the reality of things, of course.
The vast majority are of South-asian (India/Bangladesh) and South-east-asian (Thailand) origin.
They sign agreements, get on those flights, and find out that too late that they've basically signed themselves into slavery.
This was the lot of the Irish, and of Indians under the British Raj. Indentured servitude differed in only one way from slavery... the slaves were property and could therefore be destroyed (killed) by their owners with impunity.
The case of the Indians was even worse because illiteracy meant that many were tricked into it. They thought they'd just be a short distance from home, and had no idea they were going to be transported across two oceans.
Recommended reading: https://harvardlawreview.org/2021/03/the-agreement-and-the-g...
In the case of Irish indentured servants, I’m sure the difference between them and enslaved peoples from Africa were only academic from their perspective. And there is so much that I don’t understand in terms of the circumstances of them leaving Ireland. However with respect to the institutions that have developed since, equating the two requires a narrow analysis of the scale (numbers and time) and permanence (legal and cultural) of both. Hence the importance of understanding the facts of your own background in order to have healthy exchanges with people of different backgrounds (especially when historical, violent oppression is involved).
Edit: I should add and also excepting that others may have deeper understanding and taking a posture of learning instead of “winning” from the exchange.
This made it very uncommon for the Irish slave to leave, as she would be leaving her child.
I read accounts of pale skin red headed children being sold at slave markets marketing as African.
But, this could just be some right wing talking points. I honestly don't know what's real online anymore.
To use an example, look closely at the features one by one of the two men. Individually they're all pretty significantly different. But your eyes gloss over the differences because the hair, glasses, and beard are nearly identical. However those are all changeable features. Grow the hair out, shave the beard, and lose the glasses on one of them and they'd be far less doppelgangery.
There's also a local news caster that looks dead on me (albeit, with nicer hair). So much so that multiple people have sent me pictures of the person. It's very weird to see "yourself" on TV.
So, to answer your question: yes.
The science is fine, but it's verifying that commons sense is true: > That people who look more alike have more genes in common “would seem like common sense, but never had been shown,” he added.
and might not be the case "in general"
I mean convergent evolution lead to different species with very different DNA looking similar.
And evolution doesn't choose what to do, stuff (mutations etc.) "just happen randomly" and some things propagate more then others.
So for me two unrelated people with rather different DNA happen to look extremely similar seems to be quite reasonable.
Through some unrelated people having rather similar DNA is as reasonable.
I mean what is convergent evolution in context of an single species?
Wouldn't it be pretty much genetic variances of multiple people which are unrelated randomly converging by chance?
Sure with convergent evolution in nature you still don't necessary have DNA similarities, but there the DNA also largely diverged to a point of it being different species before converging. For humans the DNA was always similar so the simplest (i.e. most likely) way would to reach the same "looking" outcome would be by having the same changes/mixing of DNA variations.
:)
A suspicious doppelganger of its own
I've been singlegänging around too long to let some upstart take the chalice. There can be only one.
It was delightfully funny when a Google interviewer called me for a phone screen one random morning, and was quite annoyed I had no idea what they were talking about. Then I realized what happened.
“Do you think I’m an Android engineer from Yahoo?” “Uh… yes?” “Yeah, that’s not me.”
I later looked him up on LinkedIn. Turns out, he got the job.
There's a lot of people with my name though... including a well-known author. I was really freaked out when I was taking a lunch break and the NPR announcer said I was to be interviewed on Fresh Air later in the day. I was woefully unprepared for such an interview; thankfully, it wasn't really me.
I remember thinking it was kind of weird and cool
I’m not familiar with the lore enough.
What is the significance of there being a/the buddha existing?
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/07/13/armstron...
The Buddha is Buddha the guy.
An enlightened person is called an Arahat (Arahant). They are not Buddhas. The Buddha is one person in one world-system who rediscovers the Dhamma (Dharma) after it has been lost. Often a Buddha goes on to teach that Dhamma, but there are certain Buddhas who arise who never teach. These are called Paccekka Buddhas.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzogchen
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tara_(Buddhism)
It's still possible to look at a Chinese text and determine accurately whether an English translation should mark definiteness or indefiniteness on particular nouns. That wouldn't be possible if the distinction didn't make sense.
And yes, there was a time when a hat and sunglasses was not what anyone wore in general, so it was a bit Unabomberish.
One was from a cousin who knew me very well who told me she thought it was me initially, so there's no way this person just 'kind of' looked like me.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/08/24/virginia...
The marriage is known as a quaternary marriage, and the cousins are known as quaternary twins.
And how the porn industry was able to find so many and which are willing to become pornographic actors.
There are only so many face shapes and body sizes.
I suspect most of them were already in the porn industry, realized they kinda looked like someone and leaned into it.
Though, if you look like a celebrity people will tell you. The more you look like them the more often you'll hear it. With social media I suspect it spreads pretty quickly with tagging the celebrity directly and whatnot. As far as who are willing, I would have to guess that being presented a clear contract and check with the right amount of zeros would convince most people.
Dating app idea: Matching you with a genetically similar person (of your preferred partner sex).
I'm guessing modern genetic tests can predict the safety of having children even between siblings (because most of the issues are with recessive genes).
It wasn't that long ago that gay marriage was illegal with, as far as I know, the only real argument being the opinion of "That's gross". With the tests you describe, or permanent sterilization, the only real thing in the way of incestuous marriage is "That's gross". I'm guessing we won't see any court decisions that truly dive into the reasoning for a long time, if ever (in our lifetimes). It is an interesting thought experiment.
I honestly don't know. I suppose if the system could at least run tests for the recessive genes maybe that is sufficient. Even if the issues are strictly taboo it could possibly make for very awkward family gatherings as people start to put together who knew who.
High fives all around
This is neither right nor wrong. As is usually the case, it's quite a bit more complicated than that.
Most people who enter a relationship with someone else prefer a partner with a significant overlap in their demographic. Especially attributes like age, race, class, culture, height, hobbies, ambitions, etc. This is not universal, of course, but it is far and away the most common case, and is supported by both research and casual observation.
The most robust romantic relationships seem to be when the two people are largely similar but whose more minor differences complement one another in a positive way. One way to summarize it: A strong team of two is more than twice as effective as a single individual. Relationships that don't last tend to be because the individuals cannot find enough common ground to be happy in the present and don't see a positive future (the most common case), or because they are _too_ similar, grow bored of the relationship and feel like they are missing out on some critical piece.
There are outlier couples who seem to do just fine despite apparently massive difference differences in personality, culture, and so forth, but they are just that: outliers.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/05/18/1-trend...
---
[0]: https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/people-banana...
Complex phenotypes like face shapes aren't trivially determined by a single gene . Instead, the face is formed through the interactions by many gene products, and the differences in genotypes between individuals contribute in highly non-linear ways. For many years people tried to apply fairly simple reasoning (first just mendelian, then later SNPs, then copy number, then SNVs) on small numbers of genes but you can't explain all the hereditable genotype/phenotype variation without the whole genome (and possibly the epigenome).
For faces they generally noticed a bunch of changes in a subset of genes that are involved with embryonic and later development. And specific patterns of changes across multiple genes.
It's generally believed now that we could sequence millions of people and take normalized photos of their faces (see eigenfaces), sampling roughly from global population clusters in a balanced way, and build a joint genotype/phenotype embedding that would allow us to probe those complex, multivariate, non-linear rules. You would be able to do prediction and generation (given this genotype, show the most probable phenotype/face, or given this face, give a plausible genotype). Unfortunately this would be a highly politicized process makign it challenging to complete.
That said, though, you've typed something so unless you're sitting for the Turing test soon I'd guess you do resemble me more than a box turtle does. Knowing that features are influenced by genes, the idea that similar features imply similar genes is a very simple hypothesis to make. I'm a little puzzled why it's so interesting to test whether genetics and epigenetics influence appearance in 2022.
To me, it's near meaningless unless they start with a very strict definition of resemblance. Is it based on some measurement or someone's subjective interpretation of who looks like whom? I'm not paying $4.25 a week to read TFA and I've been told I "look like" plenty of people I don't. There are two people I know of in the world who resembled me very closely at some point in my life. One was fairly local and I disbelieved he really looked so much like me until my own aunt approached him in public and he said he'd heard the same about me. The other was a guy I knew from a BBS (actually a talker, if anyone here knows what that is) who decided he had a crush on me and sent me a photo of himself. I printed it out, held it up beside my face, and my mother asked when I had that photo taken. Freaky resemblances do exist. Should I be surprised that the people who looked like me are closer genetically and possibly in traceable genealogy than another human of another gender, another nationality, another ethnicity, another culture, and another society?
Your quest makes you concerned with discerning from averages. Outside your world, people don't have to be concerned with averages. Instead, they can see multiple correlated features. Perhaps a jawline, a brow, and a hairline.