GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-10 > 1192909117


From: (John Chandler)
Subject: Re: [DNA] Response to genetic genealogists fromauthors of Oct. 19th Science article
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:38:37 -0400 (EDT)
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20071019121224.02154e80@nature.berkeley.edu><E82B04D7-6A1E-4444-AD1B-6AB3695E05D0@utoronto.ca><REME20071019171153@alum.mit.edu><8AD56379-1ECC-43A1-A303-E5DB156967F7@utoronto.ca><REME20071019232415@alum.mit.edu><81999E5D-31C1-43BB-A431-AC9F0033617B@utoronto.ca>
In-Reply-To: <81999E5D-31C1-43BB-A431-AC9F0033617B@utoronto.ca> (message fromGabriela Novak on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:51:15 -0400)


Gabriela wrote:
> I made sure that everyone knew exactly what they are getting into.
> Mind you, my family would just have a good laugh if something totally
> unexpected came out.

When you say "family" in that tone, it sounds like the set of
relatives you have known all your life. These are the people that you
know well enough to be able to predict their response to a genetic
surprise. (Mind you, it sounds as though your prediction has not
actually been put to the test.) However, there are much more extended
families based on genealogy, and surely you have run across people who
respond with fury to the scholarly discoveries of conventional
genealogy that challenge cherished connections to the illustrious.
Such people cannot really imagine that a DNA test will prove them
wrong, since they "know" they are right, and so "knowing exactly what
they are getting into" doesn't actually include the possibility of the
unexpected. You can do your best to explain, but you can't tell how a
presumed distant relative (who is in fact a stranger) will respond to
a genetic shock until it happens.

John Chandler

This thread: