A few years ago I did a National Geographic DNA test, and got the “hah hah, more Neanderthal/Denisovan than average” result (which is apparently very common, as many folks here and elsewhere have posted similarly). If I’m not mistaken, it says that the average amount of Neanderthal is 1.3%, and I’m 2.2%. For Denisovan, the average is apparently 2.1% and I am 2.3%.
However, the infographic that goes with this is completely
Can anyone figure it out? The thing is, there are two outer rings to the circle, each of which is divided into two pieces by color, meaning there are a total of 4 shades of blue in the two outer rings.
But I’ll be damned if I can tell what those pieces mean. And what do the rings are a whole mean? Each one is far more than the 1-2% they seem to be illustrating.
My take is that the inner ring is your result and the two colors in each ring overlap. So most of your ring is the same color because your percentages are only off by .1%. Further evidence for this interpretation is that that small piece is the only one that is the same color of either of your percents (the 2.3).
The pieces of the circles are only correct relative to each other and not the whole circle.
Sorry but I’m still confused. I think I’ll have to go with** TriPolar’s** explanation.
More seriously: you say that the “inner ring is my result” (I assume you mean my result for Denisovan). The inner ring is mostly dark blue, with a little bit (maybe 1/12 to 1/14, I’d say by eyeballing it) one shade lighter blue. So, are you saying that the inner ring is a not-to-scale representation of most people’s Denisovan heritage (the darkest blue), plus mine (the added almost-as-blue)?
That would be consistent with the outer ring showing a not-to-scale representation of total population average/my amount of Neanderthal.
It’s still weird, though, and certainly not intuitive. It also leads to a question: how would they show it if my percentage was LESS than average? It’s one thing to add a little in a new color to a ring, but I’m not sure how you subtract it.
As an aside, I thought the word was “hominid” not “hominin” so I looked them up. Apparently “hominid” includes the great apes, and the word “hominin” was invented in 1985 to include only humans and proto-humans, and to exclude actual apes. So in descending order of inclusiveness we have primate, hominid and hominin. Consider me edumacated.
As for the infographic, I think Mithras is moving in the right directions, but there are problems with that interpretation. In the outside ring the line pointing to the light color, which is also the smaller of the two amounts in the outer ring, says “Average 2.1%.” So the outer ring can’t represent the averages, it must represent the OP’s percentages. Which leaves the question of what is the point of the inner ring, and why do the print colors of the OP’s percentages not really match any of the colors of the data arcs, inner or outer ring? (caveat on this point: my monitor calibration might be off, the darker blue seems close to both of the inner ring colors but not identical.)
I think this qualifies as a very poorly designed (read: stupid) infographic. It doesn’t say which hominin the averages represent. The apparently overlapping elements of the inner circle make no sense. I would really like to have someone from National Geographic interpret this and explain all these apparent errors in design.
No, the inner circle is both your results. The first, bigger blue piece corresponds to 2.2%. It doesn’t match either of the colors of the numbers because it represents the entirety of the Neanderthal and most of the Denisovan results. They are overlayed and thus the blue shown is the result of combining the light and dark blues. The remaining tiny part of the inner circle is the .1% needed to get to 2.3% for Denisovan. That’s why it’s the same blue as the number 2.3% in the middle. The outer circle shows the averages using the same scheme. That is also why the inner and outer pieces are almost the same size in total (2.1 is close to 2.3).
I agree that this is incredibly unintuitive.
ETA: And the outer circle is almost split in half 1.3 is around half 2.1.
I just wrote their press person, directing them to this thread. I hope they answer!
Mithras - after reading your second post several times, I think I understand what you are saying, kind of. I remain puzzled as to how that graphic is supposed to increase understanding, though. It actually makes me understand my results less. (It must be my extra Neanderthal ancestry dragging down my IQ.)
Well, shoot. Just got an auto-reply. She’s out on maternity leave and there is no substitute listed. I’ll try the “nat geo” team listed in their instructions on contacting them.
To be fair (and because I’m spending too much time thinking about this), my interpretation doesn’t account for the fact that the average percents aren’t labeled. I mean, they’re clearly indicating the two sections of the outer ring. But the average person has 1.3% of which species’ DNA?
So if you assume that whoever made the graph screwed up and had one of the averages pointing to the wrong ring and also miscolored the light blue section that corresponds to the Neanderthal result, the outer ring would be Neanderthal and the inner Denisovan.
As bad as the graphic is, that’s possible, but I still like my first idea.
That is all very unlikely, to drift away from the graphic for a moment. The average for non-Africans is thought to be about 4% Neanderthal. The average for non-Africans of Denisovan DNA is all but 0%, as Denisovan DNA is generally found only in Melanesians. If you’re Asian there may be trace amounts under 1% of Denisovan DNA, otherwise almost certainly 0%. The global average for Neanderthal will be much higher than for Denisovan DNA.
