People Choose Spouses With Similar DNA

FBS

Regular Member
Messages
408
Reaction score
89
Points
28
Location
Prishtinë, Kosovo
Ethnic group
Kosovar-Albanian
Y-DNA haplogroup
E1b1b1a2*
mtDNA haplogroup
J1c3
Opposites do not attract

Contrary to the common saying, study after study has shown that, on average, opposites do not attract. There’s little doubt that ‘birds of a feather fly together’: people look for similarities when choosing a partner. Now we know that this is even true at a genetic level.

It is a very short article but interesting to contmplate upon:http://www.spring.org.uk/2014/05/people-choose-spouses-with-similar-dna.php
 
I'm not so sure that's always the case. Here in the U.S. there's a great deal of intermarriage between different ethnic groups, so there are differences in religion, culture, etc., as well as phenotype and things more related to genetics.

So, I don't know how that would correlate with studies like the one you linked, and others I've seen where, in fact, they hold that physical attraction is greater between related people, which is why incest taboos are so strong.

I do think it's fair to say that the studies show that the more similarities that exist, the greater the likelihood of long term success.
 
It is interesting. We know that nature doesn't like sameness too much. Genetic variety "prepares" population to cope with many extreme and changing environments, so someone "adapted" will always survive, and life goes on.
I couldn't see any numbers in this article to check how strong the effect is. Perhaps it is rather week and could be explained by marriages of people from same town, village, high-school mostly. There is always stronger genetic relation to the people from same location, therefore to the spouse too, than when compared to random people from around the whole country.
 
My opinion: for best results they have to be the right genetic distance far from each-other. Too close or too far is not best match. The right distance would be something like Italy-England or Italy-Lebanon.
 
It is interesting. We know that nature doesn't like sameness too much. Genetic variety "prepares" population to cope with many extreme and changing environments, so someone "adapted" will always survive, and life goes on.
I couldn't see any numbers in this article to check how strong the effect is. Perhaps it is rather week and could be explained by marriages of people from same town, village, high-school mostly. There is always stronger genetic relation to the people from same location, therefore to the spouse too, than when compared to random people from around the whole country.

Yes, I think you definitely have to factor in those situations where people live in the same area for generations and usually marry cousins, if only because they're related to everyone within the limited area in which they circulate. However, I have also read about the phenomenon Angela mentioned, attraction to those who look similar to oneself. The main reason that doesn't usually become a problem within families is because we're apparently also programmed to be sexually turned off by the scent of someone we grew up with. Of course, that attraction to someone similar theory does take a hit when one looks at how often people in urban North America marry someone of a different race or ethnicity. Like most things, the whole attraction issue probably has multiple facets.
 
I agree with all of your opinions, there must be multiple facets to this issue and the study as it is presented is quite vague. But, for me it was quite a shock when I found out that I was distantly related with my father in law according to 23andme, so there might be something into Kamanis' observation.
 
They sure do in the American South.
 
They shall marry after their own Kind. So German for me
 
Just marry someone you love.
 
They shall marry after their own Kind. So German for me


All human beings are the same, we are of one kind.

Yes, we are different from lions for example.
 
My opinion: for best results they have to be the right genetic distance far from each-other. Too close or too far is not best match. The right distance would be something like Italy-England or Italy-Lebanon.

Thats what I also observed. Of course you can't generalize. There are allot of other factors playing into it, but on average it would be something not too distant but also not too close.
Of course "too distant" and "too close" differ based on the definition.



I will explain why. Not too close is to avoid incest and genetic diseases which come with it. Not too far because of the ethno_cultural, often as well genetic point of view, because people with more similarities in culture or living stylen will likely hold longer together.

These are the main aspects but of course there are other aspects like refresh of your own genetic pool, physical attractiveness which often comes with healthy livestyle and/or beiing successfull which gives the partner better chances of successfull offsprings.

At the end of the day it is too complicated to be explained by few words.
 
All human beings are the same, we are of one kind.

Very well said, Echetlaeus.

Marrying for love is also a good place to start. :) Of course, it has to be said that when culture and attitudes are very different, there will be more challenges. I'm romantic enough to believe, however, that given enough love and maturity on both sides, those challenges can be overcome.
 
Aristophanes and the myth of the soulmate comes into mind. Is there a message in this myth that we could connect with this study ... Just adding some "lets think out of the box" into the discussion...
 
I don't think that the notion of soul mate is a myth. Mutual love at first sight is what proves the soul mate theory
 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080207140855.htm

An Icelandic study showed maximum fertility at the 3rd - 4th cousin level of relatedness - so not too close but not too far.

It's one theory about the dropoff in fertility with industrialization and urbanization i.e. people from rural areas where they are 3rd cousins to nearly everyone in the local region moving to cities where there may not be anyone in that range of relatedness in their neighborhood.

(anecdote: my wife comes from the valley my paternal ancestors left 200 years ago.)
 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080207140855.htm

An Icelandic study showed maximum fertility at the 3rd - 4th cousin level of relatedness - so not too close but not too far.

It's one theory about the dropoff in fertility with industrialization and urbanization i.e. people from rural areas where they are 3rd cousins to nearly everyone in the local region moving to cities where there may not be anyone in that range of relatedness in their neighborhood.

(anecdote: my wife comes from the valley my paternal ancestors left 200 years ago.)

Very interesting study, thank you for posting it Greying Wanderer. Well Kamani was very close with his assumption.
 
I don't think that the notion of soul mate is a myth. Mutual love at first sight is what proves the soul mate theory

Despite all the naysayers, I do believe in love at first sight. I have to; I was hit by a colpo di fulmine (bolt of lightning, which is how we describe it) myself.

However, to be honest, I don't know if that's "love" in the agape sense, or even a "soul" mate, in the sense of a marriage of heart and mind. I think it's more a question of "attraction"in the way we're discussing it here.

For what it's worth, the man, whom I later married, was from the opposite end of Italy (well, his ancestors were), and on 23andme, for example, I have yet to get a single hit with southern Italians on RF. Nor do we look anything alike, really, other than perhaps that we both look broadly Southern European. On the other hand, on the overall genetic similarity measure (which they've discontinued), he was, and remains, my closest match. So there you go. :)
 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080207140855.htm

An Icelandic study showed maximum fertility at the 3rd - 4th cousin level of relatedness - so not too close but not too far.

It's one theory about the dropoff in fertility with industrialization and urbanization i.e. people from rural areas where they are 3rd cousins to nearly everyone in the local region moving to cities where there may not be anyone in that range of relatedness in their neighborhood.

(anecdote: my wife comes from the valley my paternal ancestors left 200 years ago.)
Very interesting and makes sense. After all the longest living and healthiest populations are on isolated islands.

1. Okinawa, Japan
In Okinawa—an archipelago 360 miles off the coast of Japan—you’ll find the world’s highest prevalence of proven centenarians: 740 out of a population of 1.3 million (Okinawa Centenarian Study). Okinawan seniors not only have the highest life expectancy in the world, but also the highest health expectancy: they remain vigorous and healthy into old age, suffering relatively few age-related ailments.

2. Sardinia, Italy

Sardinia is an island 120 miles off the coast of Italy where the men—mostly farmers and shepherds—are particularly long-lived. In fact, just one town of 1,700 people, Ovodda, boasts 5 centenarians (BBC News).

3. Loma Linda, California

60 miles east of Los Angeles, Loma Linda is a community that includes about 9,000 Seventh-Day Adventists—a religious group that is significantly longer-lived than the average American. Adventist culture is focused on healthful habits such as vegetarianism, and warns against alcohol and smoking.

4. Nicoya, Costa Rica

The remote Nicoya peninsula has an inland community in which middle-age mortality is surprisingly low: a man at age 60 has about twice the chance of reaching age 90 than a man living in the U.S. (Blue Zones). They also have the lowest rates of cancer in Costa Rica.

5. Ikaria, Greece

Ikaria is a Greek island 35 miles off the coast of Turkey. Like Nicoya, they’ve got a lot of nonagenarians: people there are three times more likely to reach 90 than Americans are. According to the Blue Zones website, “Chronic diseases are a rarity in Ikaria. People living in this region have 20% less cancer, half the rate of cardiovascular disease, and almost nodementia!”


Full article: http://www.aplaceformom.com/blog/2013-03-29-where-people-live-the-longest/

Author is looking for causes of longevity in food, climate, religion, etc. The simplest truth might be in the insulation of population from "incompatible" gene flaw of genetically distant populations.
It doesn't sit well with my philosophy of Global Village, but that's what it is.
 
So it sounds as if the healthiest people, in the genetic sense, are those who marry within their tribe but not within their clan, which would probably have been the norm for most people 2000 years ago.
 
So it sounds as if the healthiest people, in the genetic sense, are those who marry within their tribe but not within their clan, which would probably have been the norm for most people 2000 years ago.
I think for the norm we have to go back to small hunter gatherers tribes. They did it for couple of millions of years.
 

This thread has been viewed 18671 times.

Back
Top