About regional averages?

[reboun]

In my opinion, regardless of the tested people’s ancestral origin, anybody who claims the predominant ethnicity of the state should be included in regional averages. Wouldn’t it also be a useful and an interesting study?

[princeton90]

Let me tell you what would happen then. Say, a lot of French citizens/residents of North African descent claimed French ethnicity and therefore are included in French regional averages. When North Africans living in North Africa (who have no connection with France at all) take a DNA test, they would score significant amount of French ancestry even though they don't have any. This is because North-African-like SNPs would exist in French regional averages.

Result: Decrease in accuracy.

[Dr_Maul]

Depends on the circumstances really and the real amount of outlier people. If 1/20 people show a certain type of atypical admix, no they should not be included regardless of what they believe. But if 30% of half show it then yes it is a regional factor. But most of the time it should only be pure native race people

[reboun]

Let me tell you what would happen then. Say, a lot of French citizens/residents of North African descent claimed French ethnicity and therefore are included in French regional averages. When North Africans living in North Africa (who have no connection with France at all) take a DNA test, they would score significant amount of French ancestry even though they don't have any. This is because North-African-like SNPs would exist in French regional averages.

Result: Decrease in accuracy.

Some Portuguese and Spaniards have decent amount of North African admixture. Then why are they also included in their regional averages?

[reboun]

But most of the time it should only be pure native race people

This is the point I really do not understand. Most ethnic groups are mixed in a certain degree.

[Dr_Maul]

This is the point I really do not understand. Most ethnic groups are mixed in a certain degree.

True but then you have to consider which makes sense for the individual.

For example, in Iranian Persian north average you can notice its Turkic admix. Probably, 1/3 or 1/2 even of the samples show Azeri admixture. Well, this is normal and you include it in the regional average. But if one of these shows 5% African, you will remove it. But then on the other side, if you notice that 1/3 of Gulf Islander peoples show 5% or more African, you won't remove it because its normal regional historical admix. But if you see a gulf islander who models as Turkic admix or 50% Azeri, you remove them.

[Leto]

Stop it with these piece of shit threads already! We all know you feel uncomfortable in your own skin because you're a Turkified Bosniak living in Turkey. Seriously, I will report you directly to Loki if this happens again.

[reboun]

True but then you have to consider which makes sense for the individual.

For example, in Iranian Persian north average you can notice its Turkic admix. Probably, 1/3 or 1/2 even of the samples show Azeri admixture. Well, this is normal and you include it in the regional average. But if one of these shows 5% African, you will remove it. But then on the other side, if you notice that 1/3 of Gulf Islander peoples show 5% or more African, you won't remove it because its normal regional historical admix. But if you see a gulf islander who models as Turkic admix or 50% Azeri, you remove them.

What if a region is very mixed? For example region R is composed of people who are 20% A origin, 20% of B origin, 20% of C origin, 20% of C origin and 20% of D origin. Then which of these would be outliers of the region?

[Sora]

What if a region is very mixed? For example region R is composed of people who are 20% A origin, 20% of B origin, 20% of C origin, 20% of C origin and 20% of D origin. Then which of these would be outliers of the region?

Then it's better grouping them as like in "German_Swiss", " French_Swiss", "Italian_Swiss" etc.

[Ion Basescul]

In my opinion, regardless of the tested people’s ancestral origin, anybody who claims the predominant ethnicity of the state should be included in regional averages. Wouldn’t it also be a useful and an interesting study?

It would be horrible, because of huge genetic ranges. Bosniaks are not ethnic Turks. Drop it.

[Dr_Maul]

What if a region is very mixed? For example region R is composed of people who are 20% A origin, 20% of B origin, 20% of C origin, 20% of C origin and 20% of D origin. Then which of these would be outliers of the region?

Well, in that case I would consider it a metropolitan region with little to no point of actually making an average for it. Unless the 5 origins are close to each other, then you can just combine them.

[princeton90]

Some Portuguese and Spaniards have decent amount of North African admixture. Then why are they also included in their regional averages?

North African ancestry of Spaniards and Portuguese is very decent and dissipated into Spanish and Portuguese populations. On the other hand, Bosniak ancestry is not a norm among Turkish people. This is at least what I have heard from Turkish users in your previous threads.

[reboun]

It would be horrible, because of huge genetic ranges. Bosniaks are not ethnic Turks. Drop it.

It is not horrible. Bosniaks might not be ethnic Turks but one of the groups who are of Turkish nationality. In the future, each ethnic group who are of Turkish nationality and integrated to Turkish society will be one of the ancestral components of our people. Therefore, such study might be useful and interesting in terms of estimating future population genetics of Turkish people.



Well, in that case I would consider it a metropolitan region with little to no point of actually making an average for it. Unless the 5 origins are close to each other, then you can just combine them.

Such study would show the future genetic structure of the region.

[reboun]

North African ancestry of Spaniards and Portuguese is very decent and dissipated into Spanish and Portuguese populations. On the other hand, Bosniak ancestry is not a norm among Turkish people. This is at least what I have heard from Turkish users in your previous threads.

Is North African ancestry among Portuguese and Spaniards really that dissipated? As far as I know, some of them have more than the other Portuguese and Spaniards.

[princeton90]

Is North African ancestry among Portuguese and Spaniards really that dissipated? As far as I know, some of them have more than the other Portuguese and Spaniards.

Some of them might have relatively more North African ancestry but it still very decent.

[reboun]

It would be horrible, because of huge genetic ranges. Bosniaks are not ethnic Turks. Drop it.


Well, in that case I would consider it a metropolitan region with little to no point of actually making an average for it. Unless the 5 origins are close to each other, then you can just combine them.

Okay, but wouldn’t such study be useful in terms of estimating future population genetics of the region? Since each ethnic group who are of Turkish nationality and integrated into Turkish society will be one of the ancestral components of our people in the future.

[Ion Basescul]

Okay, but wouldn’t such study be useful in terms of estimating future population genetics of the region? Since each ethnic group who are of Turkish nationality and integrated into Turkish society will be one of the ancestral components of our people in the future.

Not really, because it doesn't account for population size, fertility, emigration, age, partner's ethnicity, etc.

[reboun]

Not really, because it doesn't account for population size, fertility, emigration, age, partner's ethnicity, etc.

Can you please elaborate?

[reboun]

Not really, because it doesn't account for population size, fertility, emigration, age, partner's ethnicity, etc.

Okay, I guess I understand what you mean. These factors might make difference but unless people of both A, B, C, D ancestry claim that they are of X ethnicity. This is why I said “people who claim the predominant ethnicity of the state” in my original post.

[princeton90]

Okay, but wouldn’t such study be useful in terms of estimating future population genetics of the region? Since each ethnic group who are of Turkish nationality and integrated into Turkish society will be one of the ancestral components of our people in the future.

It would be a useful study as far as we assume all immigrations stopped now. However, those results would not be used for Oracle distances on neither GEDmatch nor Vahaduo since most users are interested in their ancestral origin, not comparing themselves with a theoretical population which MIGHT exist in the future.

[reboun]

It would be a useful study as far as we assume all immigrations stopped now. However, those results would not be used for Oracle distances on neither GEDmatch nor Vahaduo since most users are interested in their ancestral origin, not comparing themselves with a theoretical population which MIGHT exist in the future.

I don't imply populations with such genetic structures would certainly exist but there is a high chance that they will exist. Even today, a lot of Turkish people have Albanian, Circassian, Arabic, Kurdish, Bosniak, etc. ancestries. I have a friend whose ancestry is %50 Bosniak, %50 Albanian and he identifies as nothing but Turkish. Therefore, Turkish people will be even more homogeneous in 40-50 years. This is why I propose a study which includes all the people who claims the predominant ethnicity of the state.

[Leto]

Finally Aruncaz has been banned.