Elvis had a twin brother (who died at birth).

Historically, approximately 1/125 of all births were fraternal twins and 1/300 were identical twins. The probability that Elvis was an identical twin is approximately . . .

5/11, or 45%.

Posted by Andrew on 3 January 2005, 6:36 pm

Elvis had a twin brother (who died at birth).

Historically, approximately 1/125 of all births were fraternal twins and 1/300 were identical twins. The probability that Elvis was an identical twin is approximately . . .

5/11, or 45%.

## Recent Comments

- Shravan on Bayesian Linear Mixed Models using Stan: A tutorial for psychologists, linguists, and cognitive scientists
- Andrew on Avoiding model selection in Bayesian social research
- Bill Jefferys on Avoiding model selection in Bayesian social research
- elin on Authors of AJPS paper find that the signs on their coefficients were reversed. But they don’t care: in their words, “None of our papers actually give a damn about whether it’s plus or minus.” All right, then!
- Anna on Authors of AJPS paper find that the signs on their coefficients were reversed. But they don’t care: in their words, “None of our papers actually give a damn about whether it’s plus or minus.” All right, then!
- Martha (Smith) on Authors of AJPS paper find that the signs on their coefficients were reversed. But they don’t care: in their words, “None of our papers actually give a damn about whether it’s plus or minus.” All right, then!
- Jonathan on Authors of AJPS paper find that the signs on their coefficients were reversed. But they don’t care: in their words, “None of our papers actually give a damn about whether it’s plus or minus.” All right, then!
- Anonymous on We have a ways to go in communicating the replication crisis
- Paul on We have a ways to go in communicating the replication crisis
- Keith O'Rourke on Webinar: Introduction to Bayesian Data Analysis and Stan
- Diana Senechal on Authors of AJPS paper find that the signs on their coefficients were reversed. But they don’t care: in their words, “None of our papers actually give a damn about whether it’s plus or minus.” All right, then!
- zbicyclist on Authors of AJPS paper find that the signs on their coefficients were reversed. But they don’t care: in their words, “None of our papers actually give a damn about whether it’s plus or minus.” All right, then!
- Garnett on Authors of AJPS paper find that the signs on their coefficients were reversed. But they don’t care: in their words, “None of our papers actually give a damn about whether it’s plus or minus.” All right, then!
- Andrew on Polls
- Phil on Polls
- Anoneuoid on We have a ways to go in communicating the replication crisis
- Jonah on Webinar: Introduction to Bayesian Data Analysis and Stan
- Keith O'Rourke on We have a ways to go in communicating the replication crisis
- Shravan on Authors of AJPS paper find that the signs on their coefficients were reversed. But they don’t care: in their words, “None of our papers actually give a damn about whether it’s plus or minus.” All right, then!
- Anoneuoid on We have a ways to go in communicating the replication crisis

## Categories

Isn't it (1/300) / (1/125 + 1/300) = 5/17 ~ .29?

No, it's 5/11. See http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/book/ and go to the solutions to exercises in the second edition, Exercise 1.6.

Here's how I think of it:

In 3000 births, we would expect 3000/300 = 10 sets of identical twins. Roughly half of those we would expect to be boys. That's 5 sets of boy-boy identical twins.

In 3000 births, we would expect 3000/125 = 24 sets of fraternal twins. One fourth would be boy-boy, one-fourth would be girl-girl, one fourth would be boy-girl, and one fourth girl-boy. Therefore six sets would be boy-boy.

So, out of 3000 births, five out of eleven sets of boy-boy twins would be identical. Therefore the chances that Elvis was an identical twin is about 5/11.