WWTBAM Bored

Tournament of Ten

Alex Ortiz #10
Stamford, CT

Alex won $50K during her original appearance on 9/25/09. She would lose $25K if she misses this question.

With the 45 seconds for the million dollar question and the timed banked during her first appearance, Alex has a total of 2:56.

$1M Which First Lady was a ninth-generation descendant of Pocahontas?
A. Helen Taft
B. Edith Wilson
C. Bess Truman
D. Mamie Eisenhower

Alex says she has heard this, but doesn’t recall who.

Alex decides not to risk her previous winnings.

Spoiler

B. Edith Wilson (1:19)

Answer:
$1M B. Edith Wilson

BBTranscriptTeam wrote:$1M Which First Lady was a ninth-generation descendant of Pocahontas?
A. Helen Taft
B. Edith Wilson
C. Bess Truman
D. Mamie Eisenhower

I knew that Edith Wilson was from Virginia, so she would've been my guess. For me, it would've been worth taking a chance if I had $50,000 and were risking only half of it for an outside chance at $950,000 more.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:

BBTranscriptTeam wrote:$1M Which First Lady was a ninth-generation descendant of Pocahontas?
A. Helen Taft
B. Edith Wilson
C. Bess Truman
D. Mamie Eisenhower

I knew that Edith Wilson was from Virginia, so she would've been my guess. For me, it would've been worth taking a chance if I had $50,000 and were risking only half of it for an outside chance at $950,000 more.

There are a lot of people born in Virginia who aren't descendants of Pocahontas.

It is claimed that Nancy Reagan is descended from Pocahontas too, but I could not find a line of descent.

Edith Bolling Galt Wilson connects to me though our Payne and Dandridge ancestors. The Dandridges are descended from the Plantagenets. President Obama's grandmother was a Payne so he is probably related to Edith.

Not that it makes a difference, but do they give a category? If so, is it the same one that the contestant had in their original stack?

gsabc wrote:Not that it makes a difference, but do they give a category? If so, is it the same one that the contestant had in their original stack?

That would be an interesting approach, but TPTB would probably be worried about an insider passing on that question, with so long a break between first appearances and the tournament.

The topic for the $1 million question from Alex's original stack was "Pennsylvania Avenue". I suppose that could have fit this question.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=22084

BBTranscriptTeam wrote:Tournament of Ten

Alex Ortiz #10
Stamford, CT

Alex won $50K during her original appearance on 9/25/09. She would lose $25K if she misses this question.

With the 45 seconds for the million dollar question and the timed banked during her first appearance, Alex has a total of 2:56.

$1M Which First Lady was a ninth-generation descendant of Pocahontas?
A. Helen Taft
B. Edith Wilson
C. Bess Truman
D. Mamie Eisenhower

Alex says she has heard this, but doesn’t recall who.

Alex decides not to risk her previous winnings.

Spoiler

B. Edith Wilson (1:19)

Let's see...nine generations, roughly 30 years per generation, Pocahontas was in the late 1500s, so we're looking for someone born in the 1850s or thereabouts. Which of these women was likely to have been born then? Probably not C or D because their husbands were presidents in the 50s, and since I went to William Howard Taft Junior High School and all the stuff we learned about the Tafts didn't include this, it has to be Edith Wilson. Now all that reasoning is easy from the comfort of a recliner; in the HS I probably would have walked away.

I narrowed it down to A or B using the math in the previous post, but I probably would not have the presence of mind to do it while in the hot seat.

goongas wrote:I narrowed it down to A or B using the math in the previous post, but I probably would not have the presence of mind to do it while in the hot seat.

There's too much variability in a generation, much less nine of them, to try to calculate an answer with any confidence, here. Alex even asked "How much is a generation?" while thinking about the question, but there's no standard answer when you're talking about specific people. It is what it is.

earendel wrote:

BBTranscriptTeam wrote:Tournament of Ten

Alex Ortiz #10
Stamford, CT

Alex won $50K during her original appearance on 9/25/09. She would lose $25K if she misses this question.

With the 45 seconds for the million dollar question and the timed banked during her first appearance, Alex has a total of 2:56.

$1M Which First Lady was a ninth-generation descendant of Pocahontas?
A. Helen Taft
B. Edith Wilson
C. Bess Truman
D. Mamie Eisenhower

Alex says she has heard this, but doesn’t recall who.

Alex decides not to risk her previous winnings.

Spoiler

B. Edith Wilson (1:19)

Let's see...nine generations, roughly 30 years per generation, Pocahontas was in the late 1500s, so we're looking for someone born in the 1850s or thereabouts. Which of these women was likely to have been born then? Probably not C or D because their husbands were presidents in the 50s, and since I went to William Howard Taft Junior High School and all the stuff we learned about the Tafts didn't include this, it has to be Edith Wilson. Now all that reasoning is easy from the comfort of a recliner; in the HS I probably would have walked away.

Answer:
$1M B. Edith Wilson

I know I wouldn't have had the presence to do it in the hot seat but I even after the I'm not sure I could've deduced this.

some convoluted logic ahead

Pocahontas' only child was born in 1615 (1st generation) so the next 8 generations would put it around 1815 birth (I used 25 years per generation based on the logic that people had children and died at younger ages.)

Helen Taft: born 1861
Edith Wilson: born 1872
Bess Truman: born 1885
Mamie Eisenhower: born 1896

All of those dates would be well outside of my guestimate and even changing the generation to 30 years would put it around 1855 but the range of years are too close (35 years between oldest and youngest) for me to even hazard a guess.

This is one you either know of you don't and I certainly did not.

But I did learn that Nancy Reagan is also a descendant of old Pokey, too.

Phil Ken Sebbin wrote:

earendel wrote:

BBTranscriptTeam wrote:Tournament of Ten

Alex Ortiz #10
Stamford, CT

Alex won $50K during her original appearance on 9/25/09. She would lose $25K if she misses this question.

With the 45 seconds for the million dollar question and the timed banked during her first appearance, Alex has a total of 2:56.

$1M Which First Lady was a ninth-generation descendant of Pocahontas?
A. Helen Taft
B. Edith Wilson
C. Bess Truman
D. Mamie Eisenhower

Alex says she has heard this, but doesn’t recall who.

Alex decides not to risk her previous winnings.

Spoiler

B. Edith Wilson (1:19)

Let's see...nine generations, roughly 30 years per generation, Pocahontas was in the late 1500s, so we're looking for someone born in the 1850s or thereabouts. Which of these women was likely to have been born then? Probably not C or D because their husbands were presidents in the 50s, and since I went to William Howard Taft Junior High School and all the stuff we learned about the Tafts didn't include this, it has to be Edith Wilson. Now all that reasoning is easy from the comfort of a recliner; in the HS I probably would have walked away.

Answer:
$1M B. Edith Wilson

I know I wouldn't have had the presence to do it in the hot seat but I even after the I'm not sure I could've deduced this.

some convoluted logic ahead

Pocahontas' only child was born in 1615 (1st generation) so the next 8 generations would put it around 1815 birth (I used 25 years per generation based on the logic that people had children and died at younger ages.)

Helen Taft: born 1861
Edith Wilson: born 1872
Bess Truman: born 1885
Mamie Eisenhower: born 1896

All of those dates would be well outside of my guestimate and even changing the generation to 30 years would put it around 1855 but the range of years are too close (35 years between oldest and youngest) for me to even hazard a guess.

This is one you either know of you don't and I certainly did not.

But I did learn that Nancy Reagan is also a descendant of old Pokey, too.

If you've got nothing better to do, start here and count back:

http://www.juch.org/gedpages/fam/fam05396.htm

Bob Juch wrote:

Phil Ken Sebbin wrote:

earendel wrote: Let's see...nine generations, roughly 30 years per generation, Pocahontas was in the late 1500s, so we're looking for someone born in the 1850s or thereabouts. Which of these women was likely to have been born then? Probably not C or D because their husbands were presidents in the 50s, and since I went to William Howard Taft Junior High School and all the stuff we learned about the Tafts didn't include this, it has to be Edith Wilson. Now all that reasoning is easy from the comfort of a recliner; in the HS I probably would have walked away.

Answer:
$1M B. Edith Wilson

I know I wouldn't have had the presence to do it in the hot seat but I even after the I'm not sure I could've deduced this.

some convoluted logic ahead

Pocahontas' only child was born in 1615 (1st generation) so the next 8 generations would put it around 1815 birth (I used 25 years per generation based on the logic that people had children and died at younger ages.)

Helen Taft: born 1861
Edith Wilson: born 1872
Bess Truman: born 1885
Mamie Eisenhower: born 1896

All of those dates would be well outside of my guestimate and even changing the generation to 30 years would put it around 1855 but the range of years are too close (35 years between oldest and youngest) for me to even hazard a guess.

This is one you either know of you don't and I certainly did not.

But I did learn that Nancy Reagan is also a descendant of old Pokey, too.

If you've got nothing better to do, start here and count back:

http://www.juch.org/gedpages/fam/fam05396.htm

Ugh. Not that bored yet.

Bob Juch wrote:

Phil Ken Sebbin wrote:

earendel wrote: Let's see...nine generations, roughly 30 years per generation, Pocahontas was in the late 1500s, so we're looking for someone born in the 1850s or thereabouts. Which of these women was likely to have been born then? Probably not C or D because their husbands were presidents in the 50s, and since I went to William Howard Taft Junior High School and all the stuff we learned about the Tafts didn't include this, it has to be Edith Wilson. Now all that reasoning is easy from the comfort of a recliner; in the HS I probably would have walked away.

Answer:
$1M B. Edith Wilson

I know I wouldn't have had the presence to do it in the hot seat but I even after the I'm not sure I could've deduced this.

some convoluted logic ahead

Pocahontas' only child was born in 1615 (1st generation) so the next 8 generations would put it around 1815 birth (I used 25 years per generation based on the logic that people had children and died at younger ages.)

Helen Taft: born 1861
Edith Wilson: born 1872
Bess Truman: born 1885
Mamie Eisenhower: born 1896

All of those dates would be well outside of my guestimate and even changing the generation to 30 years would put it around 1855 but the range of years are too close (35 years between oldest and youngest) for me to even hazard a guess.

This is one you either know of you don't and I certainly did not.

But I did learn that Nancy Reagan is also a descendant of old Pokey, too.

If you've got nothing better to do, start here and count back:

http://www.juch.org/gedpages/fam/fam05396.htm

OK, I went up the tree noticing the ages of the parent when their child was born. Most were over 30, some as old as 37. Why? Because the sons of wealthy families married much later due to having to establish an estate first. (Well, they didn't have to, but that was the custom.)

Bob Juch wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

Phil Ken Sebbin wrote: I know I wouldn't have had the presence to do it in the hot seat but I even after the I'm not sure I could've deduced this.

some convoluted logic ahead

Pocahontas' only child was born in 1615 (1st generation) so the next 8 generations would put it around 1815 birth (I used 25 years per generation based on the logic that people had children and died at younger ages.)

Helen Taft: born 1861
Edith Wilson: born 1872
Bess Truman: born 1885
Mamie Eisenhower: born 1896

All of those dates would be well outside of my guestimate and even changing the generation to 30 years would put it around 1855 but the range of years are too close (35 years between oldest and youngest) for me to even hazard a guess.

This is one you either know of you don't and I certainly did not.

But I did learn that Nancy Reagan is also a descendant of old Pokey, too.

If you've got nothing better to do, start here and count back:

http://www.juch.org/gedpages/fam/fam05396.htm

OK, I went up the tree noticing the ages of the parent when their child was born. Most were over 30, some as old as 37. Why? Because the sons of wealthy families married much later due to having to establish an estate first. (Well, they didn't have to, but that was the custom.)

I believed you before but now you have the research to prove it. I guess the logic is the same now as it was then. Wealthier more educated people tend to have children later.

This was the main subject of the 2005 Mike Judge movie "Idiocracy", where the planet becomes dumber because the lesser educated people continue to crank out babies while the more intelligent people wait until after they have established themselves and often that is too long.
Pretty funny and scary thesis.

Phil Ken Sebbin wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: If you've got nothing better to do, start here and count back:

http://www.juch.org/gedpages/fam/fam05396.htm

OK, I went up the tree noticing the ages of the parent when their child was born. Most were over 30, some as old as 37. Why? Because the sons of wealthy families married much later due to having to establish an estate first. (Well, they didn't have to, but that was the custom.)

I believed you before but now you have the research to prove it. I guess the logic is the same now as it was then. Wealthier more educated people tend to have children later.

This was the main subject of the 2005 Mike Judge movie "Idiocracy", where the planet becomes dumber because the lesser educated people continue to crank out babies while the more intelligent people wait until after they have established themselves and often that is too long.
Pretty funny and scary thesis.

Less-educated people also tend to have more children.

Bob Juch wrote:OK, I went up the tree noticing the ages of the parent when their child was born. Most were over 30, some as old as 37. Why? Because the sons of wealthy families married much later due to having to establish an estate first. (Well, they didn't have to, but that was the custom.)

So is the lineage from Pocahontas to Edith Wilson documented online somewhere? (Maybe it's right there on your pages, Bob, but I didn't trace through all the lines.)

The age of the parents when their first child is born is one factor, but families might continue having children for another twenty years. And if a spouse died, the widow(er) might remarry and have some more children.

William H. Hardy, who came up in a question last week, actually named Hattiesburg after his second wife. Wikipedia says he had three children with her, after having six children with his first wife. And after Hattie died, he married for a third time and had three more children, by which time he was at least 58 years old.

MarleysGh0st wrote: And after Hattie died, he married for a third time and had three more children, by which time he was at least 58 years old.

My hero. I always joke with my wife that if we wait too long to have kids, she will have to change the baby's diaper and mine.

MarleysGh0st wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:OK, I went up the tree noticing the ages of the parent when their child was born. Most were over 30, some as old as 37. Why? Because the sons of wealthy families married much later due to having to establish an estate first. (Well, they didn't have to, but that was the custom.)

So is the lineage from Pocahontas to Edith Wilson documented online somewhere? (Maybe it's right there on your pages, Bob, but I didn't trace through all the lines.)

The age of the parents when their first child is born is one factor, but families might continue having children for another twenty years. And if a spouse died, the widow(er) might remarry and have some more children.

William H. Hardy, who came up in a question last week, actually named Hattiesburg after his second wife. Wikipedia says he had three children with her, after having six children with his first wife. And after Hattie died, he married for a third time and had three more children, by which time he was at least 58 years old.

Yes, it's on my pages (go back though the Bollings then Rolfes) as well as on other web pages.

One of Edith's links to Pocahontas was a second wife.

Patrick Henry had 18 children from his two wives - thus testing my statement about less-educated people having more children. He did leave each one an estate with slaves though.

Phil Ken Sebbin wrote:

MarleysGh0st wrote: And after Hattie died, he married for a third time and had three more children, by which time he was at least 58 years old.

My hero. I always joke with my wife that if we wait too long to have kids, she will have to change the baby's diaper and mine.

You could compete with a couple in our church. He's 68 and his wife is in her late 30's. His first wife died of cancer about 5 years ago. He remarried this sweet Brazilian woman and they just had their 2nd child!!! His oldest son has children in their late teens, so their new aunt and uncle are almost a generation younger.

kay

Phil Ken Sebbin wrote: I believed you before but now you have the research to prove it. I guess the logic is the same now as it was then. Wealthier more educated people tend to have children later.

This was the main subject of the 2005 Mike Judge movie "Idiocracy", where the planet becomes dumber because the lesser educated people continue to crank out babies while the more intelligent people wait until after they have established themselves and often that is too long.
Pretty funny and scary thesis.

That idea is a lot older than 2005, and Judge (and even Kornbluth) were hardly the first to come up with it. Check this out, PKS. Classic SF.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marching_Morons

Bob Juch wrote:Yes, it's on my pages (go back though the Bollings then Rolfes) as well as on other web pages.

Okay, I asked, so I'll do the extraction:

Amonute Matoake Pocahontas "Rebecca", born: 1595
1. Thomas Rolfe, born: 30 JAN 1614/1615
2. Jane Rolfe, born: 10 OCT 1650
3. John Bolling, born: 27 JAN 1675/1676
4. John Bolling, born: 20 JAN 1699/1700
5. John William Bolling, born: 24 JUN 1737
6. Archibald Bolling, born: Abt 1770
7. Archibald Bolling, born: 1806
8. William Holcombe Bolling, born: 29 MAY 1837
9. Edith Bolling, born: 15 OCT 1872

Nine generations, it is!

Watching this, I imagine that I would've been sorely tempted to make that guess.
I wonder how many (if any) blind guesses we might see, especially among the $50k ToTers.

Speaking as an analytical sort who isn't afraid to gamble every now and then...

How often do you get a bet that good? Risk $25k on a 1-in-4 guess (at the worst - maybe even better odds if there's an answer to be ruled out), with a potential reward of a 27-to-1(*) return.

(*) 27-to-1 based on the 20-year annuitized payout that TPTB give to the "$1,000,000" winner, along with some assumptions about inflation. So $1,000,000 feels more like $680,000 when all is said and done.

Not that this 30-year formula always works.

Two grandsons of John Tyler, 10th president of the US (1841-1845), are still alive.

http://www.geneamusings.com/2007/02/joh ... alive.html

It's an old link, but Wikipedia says that two grandsons are alive as of 2009.

nitrah55 wrote:Not that this 30-year formula always works.

Two grandsons of John Tyler, 10th president of the US (1841-1845), are still alive.

http://www.geneamusings.com/2007/02/joh ... alive.html

It's an old link, but Wikipedia says that two grandsons are alive as of 2009.

At Fort Pocahontas even!

gsabc wrote:

Phil Ken Sebbin wrote: I believed you before but now you have the research to prove it. I guess the logic is the same now as it was then. Wealthier more educated people tend to have children later.

This was the main subject of the 2005 Mike Judge movie "Idiocracy", where the planet becomes dumber because the lesser educated people continue to crank out babies while the more intelligent people wait until after they have established themselves and often that is too long.
Pretty funny and scary thesis.

That idea is a lot older than 2005, and Judge (and even Kornbluth) were hardly the first to come up with it. Check this out, PKS. Classic SF.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marching_Morons

PKS didn't claim, nor even imply, that the idea originated with Mike Judge...

There's too much variability in a generation, much less nine of them, to try to calculate an answer with any confidence, here. Alex even asked "How much is a generation?" while thinking about the question, but there's no standard answer when you're talking about specific people. It is what it is.

I just figured an average generation back then would be around 30 years, and I guesstimated that she lived around 1600 so the first lady in question would have had to be born around 1870. But now that I think more about it, I didn't know how old Bess Truman was when she was first lady, so it wouldn't have made any sense for me to go for it.