Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

What are the odds of a couple's second child being a boy?

edited January 2017 in Fun, Jokes & Captions
Here's the scenario:

You meet a couple. They tell you they have two children. One child is a boy. What is the probability that the other child is also a boy?
«13

Comments

  • Burlington Bertie
  • Chizz said:

    Here's the scenario:

    You meet a couple. They tell you they have two children. Their oldest child is a boy. What is the probability that the second child is also a boy?

    I would assume, without any other information on the couple, it's 50/50 but I'm not sure if there's a medical reason for people being more likely to produce either boys or girls.
  • Well, according to this chart, bang on 50/50.

    http://www.ingender.com/gender-info/odds-of-having-another-boy-or-girl.aspx

    "Odds of Having a Girl After 1, 2, or 3 Boys

    The odds of having a girl seem decrease after having each boy, but only very slightly. Even after 3 boys, you are only 6.4% more likely to have a 4th boy than a girl."
  • This is a joke?
  • I digress a bit .. BUT ... a good friend of my ex wife had given birth to five girls, she was really desperate to give her husband a son but was equally sick of being almost permanently pregnant .. she and her hubby ran a successful business and over the years made a nice few quid .. so .. if at first (or five times) you don't succeed, try again
    at the age of (about) 43 after a failure to conceive naturally, she paid for IVF treatment in a last attempt to birth a son ..
    IVF was so successful that she became pregnant with quads, no messing there, not twins, not triplets, 'kin quads .. birth time .. out they came .. number 1 .. a girl .. number 2 .... a girl ... number 3 ... a girl .. desperate times .. number 4 ? .. go on guess



    boy !!!! .. so eight girls and one lil boy ((:>) .. and she insisted it was all worth it .. one of those 'you could NOT make it up' stories
  • I digress a bit .. BUT ... a good friend of my ex wife had given birth to five girls, she was really desperate to give her husband a son but was equally sick of being almost permanently pregnant .. she and her hubby ran a successful business and over the years made a nice few quid .. so .. if at first (or five times) you don't succeed, try again
    at the age of (about) 43 after a failure to conceive naturally, she paid for IVF treatment in a last attempt to birth a son ..
    IVF was so successful that she became pregnant with quads, no messing there, not twins, not triplets, 'kin quads .. birth time .. out they came .. number 1 .. a girl .. number 2 .... a girl ... number 3 ... a girl .. desperate times .. number 4 ? .. go on guess



    boy !!!! .. so eight girls and one lil boy ((:>) .. and she insisted it was all worth it .. one of those 'you could NOT make it up' stories

    Should have just adopted!
  • I digress a bit .. BUT ... a good friend of my ex wife had given birth to five girls, she was really desperate to give her husband a son but was equally sick of being almost permanently pregnant .. she and her hubby ran a successful business and over the years made a nice few quid .. so .. if at first (or five times) you don't succeed, try again
    at the age of (about) 43 after a failure to conceive naturally, she paid for IVF treatment in a last attempt to birth a son ..
    IVF was so successful that she became pregnant with quads, no messing there, not twins, not triplets, 'kin quads .. birth time .. out they came .. number 1 .. a girl .. number 2 .... a girl ... number 3 ... a girl .. desperate times .. number 4 ? .. go on guess



    boy !!!! .. so eight girls and one lil boy ((:>) .. and she insisted it was all worth it .. one of those 'you could NOT make it up' stories

    Should have just adopted!

    not even a thought in her head about that ..

  • C_A_F_C said:
    That's interesting. But there's nothing on that page that provides an answer to the question.
  • Sponsored links:


  • se9addick said:

    Chizz said:

    Here's the scenario:

    You meet a couple. They tell you they have two children. Their oldest child is a boy. What is the probability that the second child is also a boy?

    I would assume, without any other information on the couple, it's 50/50 but I'm not sure if there's a medical reason for people being more likely to produce either boys or girls.
    Yes, a lot of people would assume that. As did I until I heard the answer.
  • It's interesting to see that @shirty5 is by far the closest, so far.
  • Cant remember which way round it is but one sex sperm swims faster than the other but has a shorter life span.

    Therefore if the couple had "relations" at the time of ovulation it is likelier to have sex 1. The further back you go before ovulation increases the chances of the baby being sex 2.

    Science.
  • Probably total bollox so don't take it as gospel and Not clicking on the link so no idea what they say but, going by an 'old wives tale' if the first was a boy then I suspect the next one will also be a boy. Doesn't producing girls need something a little extra from the male donors sperm so, if that is the case, then if that something extra wasn't present when the first child was conceived then chances are it's not going to be there when producing subsequent children.
  • A relation of mine had a daughter as a first born who sadly past away shortly after birth. She went on to have a son next but was also desperate to have another girl. Gave up after 4 boys, all single births.
  • If they had two boys they'd have said 'two boys' not two children. 100% a girl
  • edited January 2017
    Are we talking about real life percentages, or just the Boy/Girl paradox question?

    If so, it's a 1/3.
  • This isn't the Monty Hall problem as far as I can tell
  • Leuth said:

    If they had two boys they'd have said 'two boys' not two children. 100% a girl

    I like that answer. Of all the wrong ones so far, it's the most interesting.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Chizz said:

    Leuth said:

    If they had two boys they'd have said 'two boys' not two children. 100% a girl

    I like that answer. Of all the wrong ones so far, it's the most interesting.
    Depends on how you know that the eldest is a boy. If they told you, then Leuth is likely right. But if you found out another way, then that's not an indicator and has no bearing on the likelihood either way.
  • edited January 2017
    Leuth said:

    This isn't the Monty Hall problem as far as I can tell

    No it isn't the Monty Hall problem - similar logic but different probability theory - Monty Hall is based on a second event having no bearing on the first event's probability.
  • As the previous fertilisation has no relationship to the principal of probability, the chances of the second and subsequent children being male are still 1:1 or 50:50.
  • 75%

    Can you explain how you reached that answer?
  • Chizz said:

    75%

    Can you explain how you reached that answer?
    I think it was probably something like adding up scrabble scores for the letters in his forum name and taking away the number he first thought of!

    The answer is 1/3 or 33.333% change of being a boy - that's the only correct answer (although I like the thinking of some posters!)
  • Meiosis in males produces an equal ratio of gametes containing the x or Y chromosome. The female gamete has always got the X chromosome. On ejaculation therefore an equal proportion of male x and Y chromosomes are released. Therefore the chances of a male being conceived is always 1:1.
  • If he's in the dog house, then 0% on either sex.

    Other than that 50%
  • Leuth said:

    If they had two boys they'd have said 'two boys' not two children. 100% a girl

    Exactly what I was going to say

Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!