Averages, TIP Calculator and One Size Fits All

Averages.  We all know what that means, conceptually.  You add a group of numbers together and divide by the total of the numbers you added together.  For example, 9 number locations that have a value of 10 each totals 90.  If you divide 90 by the number of number locations, 9, you get 10 as the average.  Of course, that’s a very simple example, but the concept applies no matter how many number locations or how big or small the numbers.

Often, we don’t grasp a good working knowledge of how to apply that math concept as it relates to our DNA results.

What I’m referring to here is the TIP calculator provided by Family Tree DNA, but this concept applies equally as well to any TMRCA (Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor) calculation, regardless of who is calculating it.  The underpinnings, are, by necessity, the same.

At Family Tree DNA, the TIP calculator, the little orange button above, is available to you to compare Y-line results to matches and it will give you a rough idea of how long ago you can expect to have a common ancestor.

One of the most common questions I receive reads something like this:

“The TIP calculator says that we should be related at 99% within 12 generations, but my genealogy shows that it should be 8 generations.  What is wrong?”

Or something like this:  “The TIP calculator says we are related, but I have no idea how to interpret any of these numbers.”

The answer is that nothing is wrong and these are ranges of possibilities, based on average mutation rates of individual markers.  Having said that, we know absolutely that mutations are random events.  You can see this demonstrated in the Estes project where Abraham Estes (born 1647) who had 12 sons produced one line who has several people with no mutations as compared to Abraham, and another descendant whose line from another son has 8 mutations in the same  timeframe.  Now it’s obvious that both of these are on the outer bands of the spectrum, and the average is 4, which really is not reflective of either of these lines, but is dead center accurate for two of Abraham’s other sons’ lines.

Recently, I was working with the Nemaha Half-Breed Allottee, a list of names of mixed European/Native American individuals who received individual land allotments in 1860 in Nebraska from the government as a result of an 1830 treaty.  When analyzing the 365 people who had European names, I realized that this is the perfect example of averages and how they do, and don’t, work.  So let’s visit the Nemaha for a minute.

There are 122 different surnames represented, and the average then is that 2.99 people should carry each surname.  365 divided by 122=2.99.  So let’s say 3 people, as it’s very close.

In reality, here’s how the surname distribution breaks down.

Number of People Carrying Surname Number of Surnames
1 54
2 18
3 10
4 12
5 8
6 6
7 4
8 3
9 2
10 0
11 1
12 0
13 0
14 0
15 1
16 0
17 0
18 1

You can see that only 10 surnames actually have 3 people who carry them, for a total of 30 people, or about 12%.  For the remainder, 90 surnames have fewer than 3 people, for a total of 25%, and 63% of the surnames have more than 3 people who carry that surname.

Stated a little differently, this average is accurate for 12% of the people, and inaccurate for 88%. It is close for many.  About 23% fall directly on either side, meaning 2 people or 4 people carry that surname.

So what is the message here?  Averaging tools, TIP included, do the best with what they have, which includes results at both ends of the spectrum.  In this case, it includes the 54 surnames with only one person each, and the 3 surnames who each have over 10 people each, 11, 15 and 18, totaling 44 people.  If these people were trying to make sense of these averages, 3 people per surname, these numbers would be totally irrelevant to them.

So the lesson here is to use these tools as a guideline, and nothing more. You could be in the middle and these tools could apply to your family exactly, or you could be in the family who has 18 people carrying one surname instead of the “average” of 3.

This reminds me very much of the ‘one size fits all” nightshirt that got passed around for some years at home when I was a kid.  “One size fits all” really meant “fits no one” and translated into “no one was happy.”  Of course, if you don’t understand the meaning of “one size fits all” and averages, you might be happy and think you have an answer that you don’t.

19 thoughts on “Averages, TIP Calculator and One Size Fits All

  1. I have some doubts on FF and Tmrca. I am a second to fourth cousin with a person, but the TIP says 14 generations 28%. So I imagine 99% would be somewhere at 60 generations. A second cousin ? Seems strange to me.
    What am I missing here….

  2. Roberta, you are so right! My father’s family line had many mutations and all TIP did was confuse the situation. When we did tests generation by generation we saw where the mutations happened and TIP was way off on its calculations.

  3. Good posting. This is an important concept about statistics. They work best for populations of people. The larger the number of people, the deeper the depth of the data, the better. This is the Law of Large Numbers. Still, statistics is just producing averages. Since you mention a Native American tribe from my home state, that reminds of what we say – “You can drown in a river with average depth of three feet.” I’ve physically encountered the situation on a river back home that is known as a “mile wide and an inch deep.” The natives called it “flat water.”

  4. Roberta,
    Love your blog. It is a must.
    I have had my uncles family finder in and have been struggling to figure out what I am looking at.Learned some things, Learned some proceedures. Made a match or two. Now I also have my Aunts fftest back and my own. I figured that with my maternal side Uncle and my paternal side aunt it would help me somewhat in the sorting.

    I understand that each chromoson recieves half from mother and half from father. 
     
    Now I have this situation. Can you explain what I am seeing?
    I did an “in common with match” with a person.
    There were 4 matches with all different chromosomes.
    Ok
    Then there were 3 that matched on 18 Chromosome with the same beginnings, different segments. I would assume this is from the same common ancestor, but maybe different generations.
    Then there were two that matched on Chromosome 18, exact starting and ending points.
    Then three others that had different beginnings and endings.
    All of the above people overlapped each other.

    What am I really seeing here, Roberta?
    I have read the help manuel jillions of times, but just feel thick about it or think I sort of know?
    Can you tell me what I am seeing here.

    The test results are beautiful, over 400 matches per each test!!! I am excited
    Joyce
     

     

  5. Pingback: Mitochondrial DNA Smartmatching – The Rest of the Story | DNAeXplained – Genetic Genealogy

  6. Pingback: John Campbell (c1772-1838) of Little Sycamore Creek – 52 Ancestors #20 | DNAeXplained – Genetic Genealogy

  7. Pingback: Big Y DNA Results Divide and Unite Haplogroup Q Native Americans | DNAeXplained – Genetic Genealogy

  8. Pingback: Big Y DNA Results Divide and Unite Haplogroup Q Native Americans | Native Heritage Project

  9. Pingback: What Does and Doesn’t a Y DNA Match Mean? | DNAeXplained – Genetic Genealogy

  10. Pingback: Finding Your American Indian Tribe Using DNA | DNAeXplained – Genetic Genealogy

  11. Pingback: Finding Your American Indian Tribe Using DNA | Native Heritage Project

  12. Pingback: DNAeXplain Archives – Introductory DNA | DNAeXplained – Genetic Genealogy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s