model vs reality

a mirror & the reality it attempts to reflect

The family tree models real relationships between thousands of people. Given the network's historical breadth and depth, the model is likely to contain mistakes that don't reflect reality.

the Endogame Network model

the real people and relationships

The real family network will likely never be fully modeled, but that doesn't mean modeling what we can is useless. It just means that we need to contextualize it properly when doing analysis.

biased inclusion

The most important thing to understand when trying to do statistical analysis of the Endogame Network is that we can only assess what has been modeled already.

Any data being analyzed is inherently incomplete and reflects the process of building the file more than the reality of the network itself.

Between pursuing available patterns and theorizing about specific individuals, the file reflects the contributor's methodology as much as it reflects the Endogame Network itself.

The only way statistical analysis can be completely accurate is if the network itself is complete, which is not only an impossible task, but could theoretically contain the entire human race.

why it's still worth it

the model will never perfectly reflect reality, but it's still worth building

it helps advance genealogical work

A singular model of all these people creates a sort of net that helps capture loose connections, making the discovery of hidden relationships much more likely.

it's a useful exercise in epistemology

Seeing how adding a new connection or removing an old one drastically changes the overall interpretation of the network has parallels across all science and history.

it makes proximity easier to assess

The file may not contain every individual and every path between them, but it does reveal known paths between those who are known.