Anthropological Taxonomy as Pseudoscience

[Psychonaut]

There seems to be a meme floating about here and other sectors of the interwebs that the creation of taxonomic models and maps based on the accumulation of anthropological metrics (particularly the analysis of patterns of similarity and difference in craniofacial morphology) is pseudoscience. The meme is generally repeated as a loaded word (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language) without any explanation of why it is so. I would be interested to know in what way proponents of this view think that the taxonomic studies and researches of anthropologists such as Coon, Lundman, et al. were conducted in a manner contrary to the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method):


In the twentieth century, a hypothetico-deductive model for scientific method was formulated (for a more formal discussion, see below):

Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.



A linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding:

Define the question
Gather information and resources (observe)
Form hypothesis
Perform experiment and collect data
Analyze data
Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
Publish results
Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

[Tomasz]

I was also thinking about this subject for a long time. I even planned to post it here but you were quicker. :wink

There are two sides of this problem.

Opponents of anthropological taxonomy (and racial consciousness in general) indeed use loaded language to describe that. They often don't have any rational arguments, they rely on emotional nonsense like: "we're all humans after all". I've never heard any specific arguments, only politically correct crap.
There are big differences between different races and subspecies of man, even bigger than, for instance, races of dogs. It's not like "we haven't evolved into distinct races yet", it's a complete nonsense.

On the other hand, I've seen only one opponent of typology, who used rational arguments. He's Polish and he used to write on this forum. :wink His nickname was Jarl, if you're interested in his opinions, then check his posts on that matter. Check thread "On Nordic Types" among others - he wrote there quite a lot. I'm not going to summarize his opinion in details since I don't want to distort anything.
He basically was saying that taxonomy is artifical and if we would be very accurate, we could describe thousands of races, subraces, types and subtypes basing on lesser and lesser details. He believed populations living in the same area were extremely similiar, and physical changes were caused by random mutations, natural variation.

As for my personal opinion, I am no expert at this. But I clearly see different racial types. If I look at person, I can classify him/her according to anthropological taxonomy and it makes sense. Of course there's natural variation, of course there are no "pure" types. I don't see races and types as 100% pure and descended from sort of ancestral "pure population". I see races and types as sort of specialization.
I don't agree that it's only some variation inside group but as I said, I am no expert. It would be great if someone smart could describe this. :wink

[Peasant]

There is bias to certain 'types' in some anthropologists work used to justify 'nordic supremacy'. Athough there is value in exploring the appearances of people and race.

But hey, theres biased shite being published as science almost unquestioned in the news these days aswell... about how mixed race people are superior.:rolleyes:

It all just shows the political climate of the times.

As with a lot of 'science', especially ones to do with human appearance, race and behaviour you have to filter through the rubbish.

[Grumpy Cat]

There is bias to certain 'types' in some anthropologists work used to justify 'nordic supremacy'. Athough there is value in exploring the appearances of people and race.

Agreed.

Where would forensics be without taxonomy?

Ever wonder how those missing persons investigators recreate a person's face by finding their skull?

[Baron Samedi]

Basing things on photographs (normally shitty ones at that) without proper measurements = a load of shit.

I damn near have a second major in Anthropology.... Would like to think I know something about this.

[Eldritch]

There is bias to certain 'types' in some anthropologists work used to justify 'nordic supremacy'.

Like the old cliché says, the Nazis built highways and tried to find a cure for polio, too. That doesn't mean highways and polio vaccines are bad.

[Tomasz]

Basing things on photographs (normally shitty ones at that) without proper measurements = a load of shit.

Looking at photos maybe will not give us 100% clear image but if you look at someone's picture then you see, if his head is narrow or broad, skull brachycephalic or not, et cetera. I think that if someone has broad knowledge on the subject, then he/she might give quite accurate classifications.

[Curtis24]

The meme was created by Afrocentrists, as a by-product of the "What race were the ancient Egyptians?" debate. Essentially, Afrocentrists attempted to discredit physical anthropology and taxonomic classification because the skulls of ancient Egyptians were classified as Caucasoid. As far as I can tell, that represents the genesis of the meme and its continuance. Most liberals don't even know what physical anthropology is or that you can tell racial appearance from skulls...

[Grumpy Cat]

Basing things on photographs (normally shitty ones at that) without proper measurements = a load of shit.

True. People thought I was Middle Eastern :lol:

But in forensics these concepts are still used. Of course, they actually measure the skull.

I would say that trying to do it to someone still alive (or dead but not decomposed enough) is junk science.

[Pallantides]

A Nordid Norwegian will be more genetically and racially similar to an Alpine Norwegian than a Nordid Italian, despite the Italian and Norwegian Nordid's sharing similar phenotype.

[Tomasz]

A Nordid Norwegian will be more genetically and racially similar to an Alpine Norwegian than a Nordid Italian, despite the Italian and Norwegian Nordid's sharing similar phenotype.

Well, look at this from other perspective:

I am more genetically similiar to my brother than to my great-grandfather.

I have almost the same phenotype like my great-grandfather, while my brother looks significantly distinct.

I guess only small part of genes affect your phenotype, that's why. I would rather see phenotype as adaptation to some sort of environment, life, nutrition, etc. For example people living in mountainous region often look Dinaroid and generally similiar, despite not being so closely related (genetically).

[kwp_wp]

A Nordid Norwegian will be more genetically and racially similar to an Alpine Norwegian than a Nordid Italian, despite the Italian and Norwegian Nordid's sharing similar phenotype.

This is exactly what Jarl was claiming...;)

[Pallantides]

For example people living in mountainous region often look Dinaroid and generally similiar, despite not being so closely related (genetically).

I think it depends, Norway have many mountainous regions and for example the people of Setesdal are often very alpinoid and sometimes Baltid in appearance.
http://setesdal.com/design/kart/setesdal2.png
http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/15/9e/95/lake-miserin-above-champorcher.jpg

http://i911.photobucket.com/albums/ac316/Pallantides/Setesdal/kvinnesetesdalbunad.jpg
http://i911.photobucket.com/albums/ac316/Pallantides/Setesdal/setesdaluka.jpg
http://i911.photobucket.com/albums/ac316/Pallantides/Setesdal/setesdal75.jpg
http://i911.photobucket.com/albums/ac316/Pallantides/Setesdal/setesdal87.jpg
http://i911.photobucket.com/albums/ac316/Pallantides/Setesdal/setesdal88.jpg
http://i911.photobucket.com/albums/ac316/Pallantides/Setesdal/bykle4.jpg?t=1282671732
http://i911.photobucket.com/albums/ac316/Pallantides/Setesdal/setesdal2.jpg
http://i911.photobucket.com/albums/ac316/Pallantides/Setesdal/setesdal16.jpg
http://i911.photobucket.com/albums/ac316/Pallantides/Setesdal/setesdal17.jpg
http://i911.photobucket.com/albums/ac316/Pallantides/Setesdal/setesdal20.jpg
http://i911.photobucket.com/albums/ac316/Pallantides/Setesdal/setesdal21.jpg
http://i911.photobucket.com/albums/ac316/Pallantides/Setesdal/setesdal22.jpg

[Tomasz]

I think it depends, Norway have many mountainous regions and for example the people of Setesdal are often very alpinoid and sometimes Baltid in appearance.

Very interesting pics, thank you! :thumb001:

However, in Poland and many other countries, mountainous regions are often dominated by Dinar(o)ids. They even got their name from Dinaric Alps after all. In Polish mountains in southern part of the country, people look predominantly Dinaroid or Dinaro-Alpinoid. It's very easy to distinguish "highlander look". My great-grandfather was highlander ("góral" :)) and he had stereotypically Dinarid features like convex nose, tall stature, et cetera.

Few pictures of highlanders I "googled":
http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/3359/beztytuurvt.jpg
http://www.gim1.rabawyzna.pl/us/pagina_comenius/imagenes/imag_polonia/pol_imag2006/p8.jpg
http://www.static-news.watra.pl/1671.jpg
http://www.potrawyregionalne.pl/media/fot_etnogr/para_podhale_1.jpg
http://www.potrawyregionalne.pl/media/fot_etnogr/para_podhale_2.jpg

Most of them have Dinaroid and eventually Alpinoid traits in my opinion.

[Saruman]

Maybe the most famous Polish Dinarid.:D

http://www.topnews.in/files/Robert_Kubica.jpg

[Pallantides]

I think Dinarids are very rare in Scandinavia.

[Psychonaut]

There is bias to certain 'types' in some anthropologists work used to justify 'nordic supremacy'. Athough there is value in exploring the appearances of people and race.

While confirmation bias is assuredly a dangerous tendency, which typologists do you think succumbed to this, and what are your reasons for thinking that their methodologies were unduly affected by it? While Coon, for instance, certainly recognized and documented the vast differences in cranial capacity between Austrailoids and Sinids in The Races of Man, it does not appear that this kind of "supremacy" was rooted in confirmation bias; rather it was the natural conclusion reached by analyzing statistical data.


Basing things on photographs (normally shitty ones at that) without proper measurements = a load of shit.

Indeed, but this was not the route taken by any of the actual anthropologists in question. Coon's work rested heavily on metrics.


A Nordid Norwegian will be more genetically and racially similar to an Alpine Norwegian than a Nordid Italian, despite the Italian and Norwegian Nordid's sharing similar phenotype.

True, but does the inclusion of new data turn what was previously good science into pseudoscience?

[lei.talk]

Originally Posted by Pallantides http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/jagohan/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=256917#post256917)
A Nordid Norwegian will be more genetically and racially similar to an Alpine Norwegian than a Nordid Italian, despite the Italian and Norwegian Nordids sharing similar phenotype.

Originally Posted by kwp_wp http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/jagohan/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=256934#post256934)
This is exactly what Jarl was claiming...:swl

persistent iteration is not a substitution for proof.
some may have noticed his inability
to provide any substantiating facts
or quote any references to that point (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=237114#post237114).

just as no one has provided the proof
that an individual born in norway
and displaying the nordic (http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/gloss2.htm#NORDIC) phenotype (http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/gloss2.htm#PHENOTYPE)

is "more genetically and racially similar"
to an unrelated individual born in norway
that displays the alpine (http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/gloss1.htm#ALPINID) phenotype (http://amorsite.110mb.com/index-filer/Alpines.htm)

than to any individual born in italy
that - also - displays the nordic (http://amorsite.110mb.com/index-filer/Nordics.htm) phenotype (http://amorsite.110mb.com/index-filer/GeneralOverview.htm).

until the three dna-maps are presented
regarding a particular case
(which would not demonstrate a cline or principle),

such claims are baseless bias,
unscientific thought
or sheer trollery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)). :tsk:
*

[Ibericus]

A Nordid Norwegian will be more genetically and racially similar to an Alpine Norwegian than a Nordid Italian, despite the Italian and Norwegian Nordid's sharing similar phenotype.
That's abosultely true and that's why genetics should be used instead of phenotpye classification.

[Agrippa]

That's abosultely true and that's why genetics should be used instead of phenotpye classification.

Under the conditions which produced the Nordid phenotype, the Nordid Italian will more likely survive than the Alpinoid Norwegian and those Norwegians producing Nordoid phenotypes, regardless with which other group, will produce offspring which would be more likely to survive - at least if it's about the racial adaptive qualities and thats what the types are about.

Most of what genetics now present to us is just counting of rubbish.

This rubbish might tell you something about the household which produced it, but not much more.

So genetics have to care about the phenotypical traits and types or will otherwise miss the point, because evolution, collective as well as individual qualities being based on traits of phenotypical significance, not rubbish.

[Pallantides]

That's abosultely true and that's why genetics should be used instead of phenotpye classification.

In my own family there are a great varity of phenotypes and we are all obviously racially and genetically related, my brother is not a different race than me because he got blonde hair, green eyes and an aquiline nose.

[Curtis24]

But the thing is, phenotype is a better indication of your personality than genotype is. We humans have evolved to make accurate judgements of others based purely on their facial features. More and more evidence is showing this to be true, from women being able to accurately guess a man's level of testosterone(and thus, his likelihood of achieving social dominance) simply by looking at his face, to kindergartners being able to accurately predict who's going to win an election simply by looking at their face.

This is why phenotype means more - it more accurately predicts personality and behavior than genotype does. People who look different, are different, and I don't care how genetically similar they are or aren't.

[Pallantides]

I'm better with the women than my brother is...:p:D



Though me and my brother have very similar personalities and shared interests.

[Agrippa]

But the thing is, phenotype is a better indication of your personality than genotype is. We humans have evolved to make accurate judgements of others based purely on their facial features. More and more evidence is showing this to be true, from women being able to accurately guess a man's level of testosterone(and thus, his likelihood of achieving social dominance) simply by looking at his face, to kindergartners being able to accurately predict who's going to win an election simply by looking at their face.

This is why phenotype means more - it more accurately predicts personality and behavior than genotype does. People who look different, are different, and I don't care how genetically similar they are or aren't.

Genetics is now partly able to predict certain phenotypical traits, also psychological ones and will be, especially in the latter case, much more precise than any anatomic comparison in predicting genetical factors in the personality, yet we are not ready yet and what they should search for in the future are complete packages and related traits, also by co-selection, correlations by chance and same ancestry, they should do so not just on the living, but also on prehistoric groups, so they can really analyse when and where specific traits came up, which advantages or disadvantages they had and now they came to the current distribution etc.

Then one can again directly compare phenotypical traits, also racial typology, with genetic results, but as I said, genetics is not ready yet to do that, by now, they are mostly still counting things of which the scientists don't know which relevance most genetic variants have...

And population differences caused by genetic drift are sometimes not that important for the phenotypical differences, for the "real thing", because oftentimes it is just, like I said, meaningless rubbish - most important are the genetic variants which were or are under selection and produce specific phenotypical qualities.

[Curtis24]

Genetics is now partly able to predict certain phenotypical traits, also psychological ones and will be, especially in the latter case, much more precise than any anatomic comparison in predicting genetical factors in the personality, yet we are not ready yet and what they should search for in the future are complete packages and related traits, also by co-selection, correlations by chance and same ancestry, they should do so not just on the living, but also on prehistoric groups, so they can really analyse when and where specific traits came up, which advantages or disadvantages they had and now they came to the current distribution etc.

Then one can again directly compare phenotypical traits, also racial typology, with genetic results, but as I said, genetics is not ready yet to do that, by now, they are mostly still counting things of which the scientists don't know which relevance most genetic variants have...

And population differences caused by genetic drift are sometimes not that important for the phenotypical differences, for the "real thing", because oftentimes it is just, like I said, meaningless rubbish - most important are the genetic variants which were or are under selection and produce specific phenotypical qualities.

Good points. However, I am skeptical that the public will ever become fair-minded enough to actually accept links between physical appearance and behavior. The problem is that if you can link genetics to both behavior as well as physical phenotype, behavioral differences between races will become apparent.

As it is, the genetic link between behaviors and physical phenotype - at least facial features and head shape - will probably not be genetically investigated in great length due to anti-racial beliefs.

[Agrippa]

Unfortunately, that's a real threat, especially if certain elements gain even more control over science and make "political correctness" of Cultural Marxism the new religion which will ruin true science and hide the truth...

[Curtis24]

Yeah, I think what will happen is that countries which do not have the West's racial sensitivities - such as China - will plow ahead and do the research anyway.

[lei.talk]

Originally Posted by Iberia http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=272728#post272728) That's absolutely true
and that's why genetics (http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/gloss1.htm#GENETICS) should be used
instead of phenotype (http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/gloss2.htm#PHENOTYPE) classification (http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/gloss1.htm#ANTHROPOMETRY).

such absolute certainty
must be rooted in a knowledge-base
of great depth and breadth.

hopefully, the expositor will share
a sampling of the many concrete examples
from which he abstracted this ineluctable truth.

otherwise,
we have learned no thing of reality
because the claimant has demonstrated no thing of reality.
*

[Curtis24]

Genetics will have to be the ultimate deciding factor in racial classification, but genetics, IMO, is not developed enough to yet be that.

[Don Brick]

Anthropological taxonomy is pseudoscience at its purest. I don´t really believe in this stuff from a scientific standpoint, but it´s interesting and fun nonetheless. For instance just because my brother (North-Atlandid, perhaps even Atlanto-Med) looks quite different from me (pred. Nordid+Cromagnid), I don´t think he belongs to another "sub-race" than I do, he just has a different phenotype. Obviously we´re genetically very close.

[lei.talk]

Originally Posted by Kaiku (http://www.myspace.com/kaiku) http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=278133#post278133)
Anthropological taxonomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typology_(anthropology)) is pseudoscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience) at its purest.
I don´t really believe in this stuff from a scientific standpoint...

one does not believe in science.
one either knows it or one does not.

if one has no evidence in reality
to substantiate one's statements,
one is - in deed - operating from a faith-based system
as opposed to science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method).
*

[Motörhead Remember Me]

There seems to be a meme floating about here and other sectors of the interwebs that the creation of taxonomic models and maps based on the accumulation of anthropological metrics (particularly the analysis of patterns of similarity and difference in craniofacial morphology) is pseudoscience. The meme is generally repeated as a loaded word (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language) without any explanation of why it is so. I would be interested to know in what way proponents of this view think that the taxonomic studies and researches of anthropologists such as Coon, Lundman, et al. were conducted in a manner contrary to the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method):

In the case of Lundman; it is not a scientific approach to search for evindences which will support your theory and systematically discard the obvious evidences which proves you wrong.

To have the result before you have the evidences is ... intriguing, don't you think?

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Looking at photos maybe will not give us 100% clear image but if you look at someone's picture then you see, if his head is narrow or broad, skull brachycephalic or not, et cetera. I think that if someone has broad knowledge on the subject, then he/she might give quite accurate classifications.

What is the classification worth if one sibbling is dolicho- and the other brachycephalic????

[Motörhead Remember Me]

This is why phenotype means more - it more accurately predicts personality and behavior than genotype does. People who look different, are different, and I don't care how genetically similar they are or aren't.

BULLSHIT!

Do rapists all have similar phenotype? Do smugglers share phenotype? Are kind people all long skulled?????

[Motörhead Remember Me]

A Nordid Norwegian will be more genetically and racially similar to an Alpine Norwegian than a Nordid Italian, despite the Italian and Norwegian Nordid's sharing similar phenotype.

But old school anthropologists would search for different mother populations for the two, lol!

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Unfortunately, that's a real threat, especially if certain elements gain even more control over science and make "political correctness" of Cultural Marxism the new religion which will ruin true science and hide the truth...

Hmmm... And all was well and fine when certain elements gained control over science in the 30's and 40's Germany?

[lei.talk]

in deed, it is intriguing
to have your result before you present your evidences.

In the case of Lundman (http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/bio-lundman.htm);
it is not a scientific approach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Models_of_scientific_inquiry) to search for evidences
which will support your theory
and systematically discard the obvious evidences
which proves you wrong.

please post url-links to the evidences
of professor lundman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertil_Lundman) engaging in these practices.

many of us would learn from such reading. :nod:
*

[Curtis24]

BULLSHIT!

Do rapists all have similar phenotype? Do smugglers share phenotype? Are kind people all long skulled?????

yes, to a degree. scientists have long known that those prone to physical violence tend to have facial features associated with elevated levels of tesosterone.

at the same time, those prone more to compassionate behaviors have facial features more in line with lower levels of tesosterone.

the fact that we human beings make judgements about other people's personalities, based on their facial features, implicitly means that there is a connection. if there wasn't, such judgement-calling would have been eliminated during our long history of evolution.

[lei.talk]

"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof) on him or her making a claim. This burden does not demand a mathematical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof) or strictly logical proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_proof) (although many strong arguments do rise to this level such as in logical syllogisms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism)), but rather demands an amount of evidence that is established or accepted by convention or community standards."


unsubstantiated derogations are insufficient.


it is understood that reading a text-book
once used in college-level anthropology classes (http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/racesofeurope.htm)
would consume several days of the initial impulsive impugnator
and his incautious claque (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=228493#post228493)'s time;

why have they failed to itemise any un-scientific aspects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#Identifying_pseudoscience)? :confused:
*

[Agrippa]

What is the classification worth if one sibbling is dolicho- and the other brachycephalic????

That's the most stupid argument I ever heard, because do you think Europid and Negrid doesnt exist, if two mulattoes get in the F2-generation one light and one dark pigmented individual? Even cases of one child being a recombination going largely back to Europoid, the other to Negroid, are known.

So this is just inheritance pattern and the inheritance pattern is true for all lifeforms which can mix.

There are whole species in biological taxonomy which can mix up and show a mixed phenotype then, which might split up in the following generations again.

Such cases just prove that there are specific inheritance patterns and the traits ARE INHERITED to a high degree, like all studies have proven for human traits as well - in our very variable species.

Just because human population growth and panmixture in populations resulted in intermediate and mixed variants, doesn't mean that there are not distinguishable elements and evolutionary trends inside of the population.


Do rapists all have similar phenotype? Do smugglers share phenotype? Are kind people all long skulled?????

Another argument which makes no sense at all. Even among lions there are specific defects (caused by genes or milieu), f.e. a female one killing the cubs of the others, which lead to pathological behaviour.

Obviously, such things have little to do with skull shape, because it is about completely abnormal and highly destructive behaviour, which can't be selected en large in a group which had a relative reproductive success...


But old school anthropologists would search for different mother populations for the two, lol!

The genetic profile which results in the racial types must have been spread, this or that way, and in some cases a common origin is plausible. Later panmixture just hides old relations oftentimes.


Hmmm... And all was well and fine when certain elements gained control over science in the 30's and 40's Germany?

Better than now for sure and interestingly, at least before National Socialism and in early National Socialism, there was more scientific diversity, freedom of speech and truth-seeking than now, when political correctness of Cultural Marxism and "economic interests", also called greed of the Plutocrats and Corporations, limit everything.

And of course, the racial typology:
- was not invented by National Socialists, some anthropologists which worked on it where even seen critical by them, because they tried to analyse things in a more objective way (most)
- never limited to Germany, but was the common approach in all of Europe. Only in the USA it had more difficulties, between the moronic bible Christians making up "Conservatives" which knew nothing about science and Libertarians and Cultural Marxists even at the beginning of the 20th century trying to erradicate European culture and race, becoming dominant in the universities with the help of the Plutocrats, challenging everything, every rational or irrational aspect which would strengthen the respective European-white identity or looking at human differences in a rational way.

The attacks on Coon, who was definitely not pro-German and rather anti-National Socialist, are typically for that approach to just silence every "discriminatory approach" in science, which means to kill science itself, because humans are different, different per se and different in value, the only question which remains is, how to deal with it, not if there are such differences and differences in value.

What the old anthropologists would have needed is the new archaeological and genetic input, that's something they didn't had and which explains some of their mistakes.

Yet, you have to compare their work and theories with that of other anthropologists OF THAT TIME, if you do that, you see there method wasn't less effective nor that they were more often wrong.

That approach for categorising human variation and evolutionary trends, regional, inheritable trait combinations, was just abandoned for primarily political reasons in a time of strong political pressure. Today, even more so with the new methods, we could do much more with it, if it would be resurrected, because soon we will be able to look for the specific traits which were under selective pressure and produced the specific pheno- and respective racial types.

We will be able to analyse more completely how the different human variants came up and what possible advantages and disadvantages they have.

[Curtis24]

Obviously, such things have little to do with skull shape, because it is about completely abnormal and highly destructive behaviour, which can't be selected en large in a group which had a relative reproductive success

In some environments, though, what we consider to be pathological or destructive actually had evolutionary benefits. I mean, isn't the obesity problem because in our evolutionary environments, compulsive eating led to better survival? Or crime rates because in the evolutionary environment of at least some races/subraces, there was a lot of male-male competition, etc.

[Agrippa]

In some environments, though, what we consider to be pathological or destructive actually had evolutionary benefits. I mean, isn't the obesity problem because in our evolutionary environments, compulsive eating led to better survival? Or crime rates because in the evolutionary environment of at least some races/subraces, there was a lot of male-male competition, etc.

Well, to put it that way, there is a range for normal behaviour and traits, which can change somewhat from one environent to another, but usually, inside the species, certain limits are always present and no population or type is out of it.

Also, there are one sided adaptations, which are practically useless or even destructive out of the very specific context in which they came up, and such which are generally advantageous under many conditions, even outside of the very limited approach in a specific environment.

Generalistic adaptations are therefore more promising, on the long run, than one sided ones.

As for us humans, our most one sided adaptation is our brain, which allows us very generalistic behaviour the same time.

Progressive traits in general are more generalistic, generally advantageous, than primitive or infantile ones too.


I mean, isn't the obesity problem because in our evolutionary environments, compulsive eating led to better survival?

Point is, with the exception of probably some degenerated groups, obesity was never something positive, but starving to death or being to weak for fertility was a problem much more acute than obesity.

Also it depends on the specialisation of a type, is it a reduced-sedentary, socially subdominant and frugal type, adapted to deficiences, or a progressive-active form, which survival depends on its effectiveness, like in the higher level individiual and group selection.

In the latter case, being fat was no option, because if your abilities were limited, funktional and aesthetically, you lost.

On the other hand, living in a starving, subdominant and sedentary population with no higher level individual and group selection, being cheaper and storing more was oftentimes more important than being effective and more aesthetic.

Since what's attractive can be influenced by culture and the own traits, a whole trend for selecting physical traits can come up that way through sexual selection, strengthening a trend which was already present before sometimes.

So, in a way, we deal with trade offs at times, because you can't be as cheap and storing as good, while at the same time being as effective and good looking.

That's just not possible, so many people will be a compromise, many others more this or that.

In any case, talking about obesity, there is also acquired and inherited one, the latter is pathological in young age as a rule of thumb and was NEVER selected as far as I know, but was always a minority problem.

In some cases a specific defect, in others a bad recombination - probably similar to some other traits which can be advantageous in their heterozygous form in the phenotype, but a clear defect in a homozygous one.

So if f.e. a normal Pyknic type had an advantage, f.e. in the saving-cheap strategy of sedentary tillers, certain genes might have been selected, which, in a bad or/and pure recombination lead to a pathological case f.e.

This would result in a minority of pathologically obese people (even in young age then usually) which are the trade off for having a mild form, which is cheaper and good for storage among dependent tillers in an unfavourable environment.

[Farcebook]

A somewhat related article by Steven Pinker...

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2006_06_17_thenewrepublic.html


And yet the dangers are real. Like intelligence, personality traits are measurable, heritable within a group, and slightly different, on average, between groups. Someday someone could test whether there was selection for personality traits that are conducive to success in money-lending and mercantilism, traits that I will leave to the reader's imagination. One can also imagine how a finding of this kind would be interpreted in, say, Cairo, Tehran, and Kuala Lumpur. And the CH&H study could lower people's resistance to more invidious comparisons, such as groups who historically score lower, rather than higher, on IQ tests.

What can be done? In recent decades, the standard response to claims of genetic differences has been to deny the existence of intelligence, to deny the existence of races and other genetic groupings, and to subject proponents to vilification, censorship, and at times physical intimidation. Aside from its effects on liberal discourse, the response is problematic. Reality is what refuses to go away when you do not believe in it, and progress in neuroscience and genomics has made these politically comforting shibboleths (such as the non-existence of intelligence and the non-existence of race) untenable.

Rather than legislating facts, could we adopt a policy of agnosticism, and recommend that we "don't go there"? Scientists routinely avoid research that may have harmful consequences, such as injuring human subjects or releasing dangerous microorganisms. The problem with this line of thought is that it would restrict research based on its intellectual content rather than on its physical conduct. Ideas are connected to other ideas, often in unanticipated ways, and restrictions on content could cripple freedom of inquiry and distort the intellectual landscape.

[TriRÿche]

I knew, from the first post of yours that I read, that I respected you, lei.talk. Your logic is impeccable.



"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof) on him or her making a claim. This burden does not demand a mathematical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof) or strictly logical proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_proof) (although many strong arguments do rise to this level such as in logical syllogisms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism)), but rather demands an amount of evidence that is established or accepted by convention or community standards."


unsubstantiated derogations are insufficient.

[Curtis24]

Agrippa, I know this question is probably too complicated to answer here, and I'm sure you've spoken about this at Apricity in the past, but how do the different ancestral environments of different races create different environments? Can you categorize races by ancestral environment? For instance, do those who morphologically evolved in hunter-gather environments have certain personality traits, those who developed in pastoralist societies having differing traits, those in agriculturalist societies still differing traits.

[Agrippa]

Agrippa, I know this question is probably too complicated to answer here, and I'm sure you've spoken about this at Apricity in the past, but how do the different ancestral environments of different races create different environments? Can you categorize races by ancestral environment? For instance, do those who morphologically evolved in hunter-gather environments have certain personality traits, those who developed in pastoralist societies having differing traits, those in agriculturalist societies still differing traits.

Yes, that is, at least as a tendency, true for all the things you mentioned, but it is more complicated insofar, as there are overlapping influences.

F.e. "cold climate + bad nutrition + physically one sided demanding agriculture + peaceful + serious endemic diseases" means something different from "hot-dry climate + bad nutrition + physically one sided demanding agriculture + warlike + serious endemic diseases."

Same might be true if taking away or add anything else, so even in the same region, as agriculturalists, things might be quite different if changing something else...

This post is of some interest for that matter:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=224521&postcount=365

and especially this one:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=49844&postcount=9

[SardiniaAtlantis]

Yes, that is, at least as a tendency, true for all the things you mentioned, but it is more complicated insofar, as there are overlapping influences.

F.e. "cold climate + bad nutrition + physically one sided demanding agriculture + peaceful + serious endemic diseases" means something different from "hot-dry climate + bad nutrition + physically one sided demanding agriculture + warlike + serious endemic diseases."

Same might be true if taking away or add anything else, so even in the same region, as agriculturalists, things might be quite different if changing something else...

This post is of some interest for that matter:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=224521&postcount=365

and especially this one:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=49844&postcount=9

I very much doubt any serious research into this that merits such a sure answer.

[Rafael Passoni]

It's pseudoscience and nobody takes it too serious, but its cool to waste time.