It's plausible TBH. I think GSS max is wrongly to low, I've known plenty of families with between ten and fourteen kids all the same mom. Not just my grandmother's generation either, but current families with the mothers in their thirties.
I think for extremely high number though, and I didn't look into the data, it depends on framing. Does it say full blooded? I've known guys personally with around fifty children between multiple wives (not polygamy, just four or five marriages over eighty years), girlfriends, mistresses, and one night stands which makes having eighty siblings plausible if you count halves. I mean Al Pacino (age 84) has a two year old for example. My own kids have at least four halves that I know about (but they don't), wouldn't be surprised if a couple others knocked my door one day.
I find fertility numbers tend to skew like many things, i.e. lots of big families, lots of zero families, and a whole lot of nothing in the middle (5 to 9).
My dad has 10 siblings and my grandmother has 12!
It's plausible TBH. I think GSS max is wrongly to low, I've known plenty of families with between ten and fourteen kids all the same mom. Not just my grandmother's generation either, but current families with the mothers in their thirties.
I think for extremely high number though, and I didn't look into the data, it depends on framing. Does it say full blooded? I've known guys personally with around fifty children between multiple wives (not polygamy, just four or five marriages over eighty years), girlfriends, mistresses, and one night stands which makes having eighty siblings plausible if you count halves. I mean Al Pacino (age 84) has a two year old for example. My own kids have at least four halves that I know about (but they don't), wouldn't be surprised if a couple others knocked my door one day.
I find fertility numbers tend to skew like many things, i.e. lots of big families, lots of zero families, and a whole lot of nothing in the middle (5 to 9).