My 23andMe Results

Last Christmas my parents bought me a 23andme DNA test. As I unwrapped the gift my step father, in classic dad joke fashion, looked me square in the eye and said “Luke, I’m not your father.” He then proceeded to laugh hysterically. I never particularly minded the bombardment of star wars jokes growing up, but if there ever was an appropriated time he definitely nailed it.

Anyways, I just received my results and thought it would be fun to share them here. 23andMe breaks their reports down into 3 major categories: Ancestry,Traits and Wellness. I won’t go through every detail they provided, but I’ll highlight the parts I found most interesting.



More than 80% of my ancestry is British & Irish (56.5%) and Broadly Northwestern European (24.7%) which are descendants from countries like Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway and Iceland. The next biggest chunk is French & German (14.2%) and finally Native American (1.1%). Other European ancestry fell under (1%) and everything else was less than .1%


Perhaps the most interesting discovery was the amount of Neanderthal DNA variants I had. Most people with European ancestry have between 1 – 4% in their DNA and I seemed to fall on the higher end of that scale. In addition, I inherited the specific Neanderthal trait of having less back hair (can’t complain about this hehe). For those interested in how they determined the Neanderthal trait: marker rs4849721 near the EIN gene showed a change from a G to a T. It was a lot of fun looking at the raw data despite having an elementary understanding of genetics.

The ancestry reports also provided information about Haplogroups. In simplest terms, Haplogroups are maternal or paternal lineages that descend from a single common ancestor. Haplogroups help shed light on the origins of some of our ancient ancestors and on their migrations over tens of thousands of years.maternalhaplogroup

My maternal line belongs to the Haplogroup K2a3.

Origin: K2a3 is a subgroup of K. K split off the more ancient haplogroup U8 about 35,000 years ago. Since then, haplogroup K has been involved in migrations from the Near East into Europe. Notably, particular branches of haplogroup K are part of the founding and expansion of the majority of Ashkenazi Jewish populations. K is found in 6% of Europeans.


My paternal line belongs to the Haplogroup R-M412

Origin: R-M412 is a subgroup of R-M269. R-M269 is the most common haplogroup in western Europe, where its branches are clustered in various national populations, including in the Basque, in Ireland, and on the fringes of the North Sea. R-M269 is found in more than 50% of men in western Europe.



The wellness reports show how your DNA may influence how you respond to certain lifestyle and environmental factors. I laughed out loud when I read I was “Likely consumes more caffeine” and “less likely a deep sleeper.” Extremely accurate, but at least I know why I’m a tea/coffee addict and don’t sleep very well now. Curse you DNA!

The rest of the report was pinpoint accurate as well with the only questionable one being my muscle composition being “likely sprinter.” I always felt I was better at endurance running, but that could just be my long distant running bias speaking. Athleticism in the form of diet, training, and other genetic factors can also play a major role in muscle performance.



The Traits Reports explains how your DNA may influence your physical appearance, preferences, and physical responses. The predictions are based on current knowledge of how genetic factors influence our traits and the list above is just a portion of some of the traits they covered.

No big surprises here, but there’s certainly a lot of interesting statistics. My paternal lineage (father, fathers father, grandfathers father) all share blue eyes and my mom has hazel eyes, so it was interesting to see these percentages. I have blue eyes (or maybe greenish blue) and my sister has hazel eyes. As far as I can tell I inherited all of the majority percentage traits with the one exception being the coin flip for earlobe type. Attached earlobes are clearly better 😉

Well that about wraps it up! Each report goes into a lot detail and there’s still several reports I’m eager in dissecting further. Overall it was a really fun experience and I definitely recommend it!

The Paradox of Free Markets

No individual has had a greater influence on economic policy than Adam Smith. Smith laid the foundations of classical free market theory and most notably conceptualized the idea that profit maximizing firms interacting with rational consumers in competitive markets lead to prosperous societies. [1] For this reason, Smith is frequently celebrated by free market fundamentalists as a champion of Laissez-faire capitalism.

However, despite what his contemporary followers claim, Smith recognized the limitations of the market and the necessity of government:

“According to the system of natural liberty, the sovereign has only three duties to attend to; three duties of great importance, indeed, but plain and intelligible to common understandings: first, the duty of protecting the society from violence and invasion of other independent societies; secondly, the duty of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice; and, thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain; because the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, though it may frequently do much more than repay it to a great society.”- Adam Smith IV.9.51

Smith believed that it was essential for government to provide certain goods like infrastructure, banking and education because they provided the foundation in which markets could flourish. Nevertheless, Smith recognized the danger of government when their authority was used only to benefit a small number of individuals. Indeed, Smith warned again and again of the collusive nature of business interests, the formation of cabals or monopolies, and the political power this gives to the richest members of society:

“It is in the age of shepherds, in the second period of society, that the inequality of fortune first begins to take place, and introduces among men a degree of authority and subordination which could not possibly exist before. It thereby introduces some degree of that civil government which is indispensably necessary for its own preservation: and it seems to do this naturally, and even independent of the consideration of that necessity. The consideration of that necessity comes no doubt afterwards to contribute very much to maintain and secure that authority and subordination. The rich, in particular, are necessarily interested to support that order of things which can alone secure them in the possession of their own advantages. Men of inferior wealth combine to defend those of superior wealth in the possession of their property, in order that men of superior wealth may combine to defend them in the possession of theirs. All the inferior shepherds and herdsmen feel that the security of their own herds and flocks depends upon the security of those of the great shepherd or herdsman; that the maintenance of their lesser authority depends upon that of his greater authority, and that upon their subordination to him depends his power of keeping their inferiors in subordination to them. They constitute a sort of little nobility, who feel themselves interested to defend the property and to support the authority of their own little sovereign in order that he may be able to defend their property and to support their authority. Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”Adam Smith V.1.55

What Smith is describing here is the foundation of corporatism. Simply put, corporatism is the control of the state by the richest interest groups. In practice, corporations will lobby the government for things like subsidies and profit reducing regulations. Free market fundamentalists will often call this level of conspiracy “crony capitalism.” They argue that by simply reducing government size that the “free market” will naturally resolve this issue. This, however, is a misguided fantasy with no factual basis in history.

Before we go any further we must identify what a “free market” actually is, or at the very least, try to understand what it implies. Let’s look at some modern dictionary definitions:

“An economic market or system in which prices are based on competition among private businesses and not controlled by a government.” – Merriam Webster

“Business governed by the laws of supply and demand, not restrained by government interference, regulation or subsidy.” – Investor Words

“An economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies.”

Today, the term “free market” is often defined as a market without government regulation. Implicit in this definition is that buyers and sellers would have “prices based on competition”, markets would follow the “laws of supply and demand”, and economic activity would be “unrestricted.” Immediately we can see contradictions in this concept.

The following excerpt from Understanding Capitalism demonstrates this quite concisely:

“Without government interference there is nothing to prevent interference, restriction, and subsidy by the mafia, an activity for which we have real world examples. Without government interference there is nothing to prevent the erection of barriers to free transaction, used either to extract rents, to marginalize competition, or to punish groups of people based on any number of criteria such as race, religion, gender, etc. Furthermore, there are any number of ways in which non-governmental entities can implement rules and regulations which distort the laws of supply and demand, a classic example being the National Football League’s imposition of salary caps and profit sharing across organizations.” R.G. Price, Understanding Capitalism

So here we have a paradox. Without the government imposing rules on the market, there is nothing to stop the “free market” from restricting itself from the next powerful authority. There are countless examples of the “free market” distorting itself. To name a few:

Coca Cola paying retailers to eliminate competition

Ticketmaster obtaining exclusive contracts with venues

F.W. Woolworth discriminating against black customers

Japanese citizens erecting barriers to trade and charging tolls for the transport of goods

In each of these cases we see private actors take action to subvert the “laws of supply and demand,” distort “prices based on competition” or prevent people from transacting freely in an “unrestricted” market without any coercion from government forces. Indeed, it was the implementation of government regulation that ultimately led to a freer market in these cases.

To conclude, Smiths analysis of free markets provides a solid foundation for creating a prosperous society. However, free markets ≠ no government regulation. A freed market must have limited, but smart regulations towards the highest concentrations of capital. It must also account for externalities. And ideally, the freed market would be one that redistributes its capital to all its citizens, but I’ll save those thoughts for another time.