Sub-17 Feminine Spanish Football Team

[Cristiano viejo]

I speak based on the work of Carleton Coon.

I stopped to read here. Coon never stepèd Spain. You neither I guess. Come here and then judge.

You have RMuller and a horde of angry latinos and we have brazilian shitposters popping up one after another like cockroaches.

I don't know who has it better.

Our American bastards rebel!

[hurtuv]

The darkest Europeans are Portuguese. But the Sardinian Italians and the Andalusians are at exactly the same level of pigmentation and in some ways, are slightly darker. Greeks are still lighter-skinned than southern Italians on average.

Lol, did you get that from His Highness The Great Pre-Eminent Lord of the Anthropologists Charlatan S. Con?

The guy's on the same category of phrenology man, the ancient bygone bullshit type. He's been debunked time and time again for a long time, it's no breaking news. And you can see why, you should be able to see it from a mile. Stop beating the dead horse.

He represents the worse of an era where there was lack of quality data + still some ripples from the fabricated ideas from an even earlier and more ignorant time ("muh, Africa starts at the Pyrenees", France XIX century stuff, you know the type...).

---------------------

Since you were talking about skin colour, here's a modern study, done by scholars, with modern methods and the availability of data that there is nowadays (something Coon did not have):

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0048294



Not only it did the averages of Porto showed lighter hair, eyes and skin than Rome, they also showed marginally lighter (untanned) skin than Warsaw as well.

---------------------

Here are some Portuguese people protesting against vaccines, masks, lockdown measures, etc.











If your life depended on it, would you bet in favor or against you being able to find a population two levels lighter than this or than some areas of Wales, on that pretty little patch of Moroccan coast, as it is true per Coon's map?

online image uploader

---------------------

You know the world as evolved, the amount of data and information has exponentially increased; why do you choose to listen to a guy like Coon, who's a product of the limitations of his time?

[jeremy vaz]

Lol, did you get that from His Highness The Great Pre-Eminent Lord of the Anthropologists Charlatan S. Con?

The guy's on the same category of phrenology man, the ancient bygone bullshit type. He's been debunked time and time again for a long time, it's no breaking news. And you can see why, you should be able to see it from a mile. Stop beating the dead horse.

He represents the worse of an era where there was lack of quality data + still some ripples from the fabricated ideas from an even earlier and more ignorant time ("muh, Africa starts at the Pyrenees", France XIX century stuff, you know the type...).

---------------------

Since you were talking about skin colour, here's a modern study, done by scholars, with modern methods and the availability of data that there is nowadays (something Coon did not have):

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0048294



Not only it did the averages of Porto showed lighter hair, eyes and skin than Rome, they also showed marginally lighter (untanned) skin than Warsaw as well.

---------------------

Here are some Portuguese people protesting against vaccines, masks, lockdown measures, etc.











If your life depended on it, would you bet in favor or against you being able to find a population two levels lighter than this or than some areas of Wales, on that pretty little patch of Moroccan coast, as it is true per Coon's map?

online image uploader

---------------------

You know the world as evolved, the amount of data and information has exponentially increased; why do you choose to listen to a guy like Coon, who's a product of the limitations of his time?

This work, which claims that Poles and Italians are more dark-skinned, is quite questionable. In fact, he analyzes a sample of less than 100 people of each nationality. The work A Pigmentação dos Portugueses by Eusébio Tamagnini (1936), was based on the analysis of about 11,000 Portuguese people! Even though it is an outdated work, the sources that Coon uses seem to me to be more reliable than current works in bio anthropology. I have my doubts even if the population of Calabria is darker in pigmentation than the population of Portugal. Since the Calabrians are predominantly Mediterranean dinaricized by Alpine mixture.

I suggest you watch videos from regional channels from Sicily and compare with videos from regional channels from Portugal. You will clearly notice that a large minority of them have pink skin. In Portugal, this natural skin tone only reaches very significant percentages in Alentejo, Algarve and Azores from what I have seen in videos.

[jeremy vaz]

Lol, did you get that from His Highness The Great Pre-Eminent Lord of the Anthropologists Charlatan S. Con?

The guy's on the same category of phrenology man, the ancient bygone bullshit type. He's been debunked time and time again for a long time, it's no breaking news. And you can see why, you should be able to see it from a mile. Stop beating the dead horse.

He represents the worse of an era where there was lack of quality data + still some ripples from the fabricated ideas from an even earlier and more ignorant time ("muh, Africa starts at the Pyrenees", France XIX century stuff, you know the type...).

---------------------

Since you were talking about skin colour, here's a modern study, done by scholars, with modern methods and the availability of data that there is nowadays (something Coon did not have):

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0048294



Not only it did the averages of Porto showed lighter hair, eyes and skin than Rome, they also showed marginally lighter (untanned) skin than Warsaw as well.

---------------------

Here are some Portuguese people protesting against vaccines, masks, lockdown measures, etc.











If your life depended on it, would you bet in favor or against you being able to find a population two levels lighter than this or than some areas of Wales, on that pretty little patch of Moroccan coast, as it is true per Coon's map?

online image uploader

---------------------

You know the world as evolved, the amount of data and information has exponentially increased; why do you choose to listen to a guy like Coon, who's a product of the limitations of his time?

This work, which claims that Poles and Italians are more dark-skinned, is quite questionable. In fact, he analyzes a sample of less than 100 people of each nationality. The work A Pigmentação dos Portugueses by Eusébio Tamagnini (1936), was based on the analysis of about 11,000 Portuguese people! Even though it is an outdated work, the sources that Coon uses seem to me to be more reliable than current works in bio anthropology. I have my doubts even if the population of Calabria is darker in pigmentation than the population of Portugal. Since the Calabrians are predominantly Mediterranean dinaricized by Alpine mixture.

I suggest you watch videos from regional channels from Sicily and compare with videos from regional channels from Portugal. You will clearly notice that a large minority of them have pink skin. In Portugal, this natural skin tone only reaches very significant percentages in Alentejo, Algarve and Azores from what I have seen in videos.

[aherne]

Fair and unbiased representation of Spanish teen/young adults: Med-Alpine mix forms the bedrock (like in Italians, but latter have Dinaric too) with a Keltic shift in many... Definitely not close to ethnic French, especially as a group

[hurtuv]

This work, which claims that Poles and Italians are more dark-skinned, is quite questionable. In fact, he analyzes a sample of less than 100 people of each nationality.

99 Portuguese and 64 Italians are not that few for what is pretended. Its enough to even out most discrepancies. One of the reasons I know this is because of my experience with making morphs; if you are making a face morph from a group of people from a certain ethnicity, it will start approaching its final aspect quite a bit before it reaches those numbers.

In a related away, in this study, if its the averages we're interested in, what's important is the relatively large number of average individuals being counted. For that purpose those numbers are reasonable. It's not the fact that the sample picked up a larger or smaller number of outlier individuals, by a matter of chance, that is going to make any perceivable difference. It may make a difference to people's eyes looking at crowd pics, but not for this.

And while 27 Poles may not give an ultimate result, the data would not run madly away from that if you doubled, tripled, or added 11000 people to the sample. It's enough to show with reliability that, independently of differences in hair, eyes, and facial features, the Portuguese and Polish populations have the same average general skin tone in areas of the body that don't get exposed to the sun and don't tan; which makes sense to me from first hand experience and from simply knowing they are both white European populations, but will of course sound ridiculous to people that don't know any better because the only mental image they have of the Portuguese is of them tanned due to the sun exposure of Portugal and the high tanning hability of the population (which is an independent genetic factor from unexposed skin, by which I mean, you can have a population with lighter skin that tans better or one with darker skin that tans worse).

The work A Pigmentação dos Portugueses by Eusébio Tamagnini (1936), was based on the analysis of about 11,000 Portuguese people! Even though it is an outdated work, the sources that Coon uses seem to me to be more reliable than current works in bio anthropology.

And what standarts did Tamagnini use for, for instance, blond/red hair, in his study? And was he taking notes from people on a place outdoors with sun reflecting on their heads or did he take them to some poorly lit room to look at them? And was it in the summer, with their hair sunbleached and more tan, or in the winter? And most importantly, were all of these factors and more the same as in all the other studies throughout Europe, from which Coon took data for his work?

That's one big problem with these types of comparative studies. Either it's done first hand by the same person or team using the same standarts and paying attention to these factors (like the study I mentioned), or its reliability goes down.

Another factor is the age limits for the subjects involved. For instance, Tamagnini found 2.25% of blond/red hair in adults but 18-23% in primary school children in another study ("Cor (A) do Cabêlo e dos Olhos nos Estudantes das Escolas Primárias Portuguesas" (1909/10-1915) by Ph.D. Tamagnini, Eusébio Barbosa - Universidade de Coimbra).

And while I can see that being accurate for children, I think at least for adults he didn't use the same standarts and the results seem low compared to other studies and my general perception, at least contacting with young adults.
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...ass-as-a-group
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...s-As-a-Group-2
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...s-As-a-Group-3








Getting back to Coon, that's only the beginning of the list of problems. Understand his "we don't know but we'll patch it up with mediocre assumptions" mentality, and that's a whole other slippery slope.

For instance, he wrote "historically, Portugal has long been divided into two parts, a northern and a southern, with the river Tagus forming the boundary between the two";
...too bad such division never really existed in that way; I guess he took one look at the map, saw a river that happens to run throught the middle of the country, thought about it for five seconds, and anounced his brilliant conclusion to the world ;
...if only it were that easy...

Another one, "Later on, the Keltic invasions affected only the north, as did the inroads of the Germans.", aahhh...nope, they did not, pure and simple Neither with Celts nor Germanics, of whom the Suebi settled the North and Visigohts the south.

I have my doubts even if the population of Calabria is darker in pigmentation than the population of Portugal. Since the Calabrians are predominantly Mediterranean dinaricized by Alpine mixture.

I suggest you watch videos from regional channels from Sicily and compare with videos from regional channels from Portugal. You will clearly notice that a large minority of them have pink skin. In Portugal, this natural skin tone only reaches very significant percentages in Alentejo, Algarve and Azores from what I have seen in videos.

Well, I already posted a series of videos. I take it you know some of Sicily and Calabria; if you do, please post them, I'm genuinely interested. If you have some videos of kids, we can compare them with the ones I posted; otherwhise here are some more from Portugal to make comparisons:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...=1#post7413669

[jeremy vaz]

99 Portuguese and 64 Italians are not that few for what is pretended. Its enough to even out most discrepancies. One of the reasons I know this is because of my experience with making morphs; if you are making a face morph from a group of people from a certain ethnicity, it will start approaching its final aspect quite a bit before it reaches those numbers.

In a related away, in this study, if its the averages we're interested in, what's important is the relatively large number of average individuals being counted. For that purpose those numbers are reasonable. It's not the fact that the sample picked up a larger or smaller number of outlier individuals, by a matter of chance, that is going to make any perceivable difference. It may make a difference to people's eyes looking at crowd pics, but not for this.

And while 27 Poles may not give an ultimate result, the data would not run madly away from that if you doubled, tripled, or added 11000 people to the sample. It's enough to show with reliability that, independently of differences in hair, eyes, and facial features, the Portuguese and Polish populations have the same average general skin tone in areas of the body that don't get exposed to the sun and don't tan; which makes sense to me from first hand experience and from simply knowing they are both white European populations, but will of course sound ridiculous to people that don't know any better because the only mental image they have of the Portuguese is of them tanned due to the sun exposure of Portugal and the high tanning hability of the population (which is an independent genetic factor from unexposed skin, by which I mean, you can have a population with lighter skin that tans better or one with darker skin that tans worse).



And what standarts did Tamagnini use for, for instance, blond/red hair, in his study? And was he taking notes from people on a place outdoors with sun reflecting on their heads or did he take them to some poorly lit room to look at them? And was it in the summer, with their hair sunbleached and more tan, or in the winter? And most importantly, were all of these factors and more the same as in all the other studies throughout Europe, from which Coon took data for his work?

That's one big problem with these types of comparative studies. Either it's done first hand by the same person or team using the same standarts and paying attention to these factors (like the study I mentioned), or its reliability goes down.

Another factor is the age limits for the subjects involved. For instance, Tamagnini found 2.25% of blond/red hair in adults but 18-23% in primary school children in another study ("Cor (A) do Cabêlo e dos Olhos nos Estudantes das Escolas Primárias Portuguesas" (1909/10-1915) by Ph.D. Tamagnini, Eusébio Barbosa - Universidade de Coimbra).

And while I can see that being accurate for children, I think at least for adults he didn't use the same standarts and the results seem low compared to other studies and my general perception, at least contacting with young adults.
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...ass-as-a-group
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...s-As-a-Group-2
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...s-As-a-Group-3








Getting back to Coon, that's only the beginning of the list of problems. Understand his "we don't know but we'll patch it up with mediocre assumptions" mentality, and that's a whole other slippery slope.

For instance, he wrote "historically, Portugal has long been divided into two parts, a northern and a southern, with the river Tagus forming the boundary between the two";
...too bad such division never really existed in that way; I guess he took one look at the map, saw a river that happens to run throught the middle of the country, thought about it for five seconds, and anounced his brilliant conclusion to the world ;
...if only it were that easy...

Another one, "Later on, the Keltic invasions affected only the north, as did the inroads of the Germans.", aahhh...nope, they did not, pure and simple Neither with Celts nor Germanics, of whom the Suebi settled the North and Visigohts the south.



Well, I already posted a series of videos. I take it you know some of Sicily and Calabria; if you do, please post them, I'm genuinely interested. If you have some videos of kids, we can compare them with the ones I posted; otherwhise here are some more from Portugal to make comparisons:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...=1#post7413669

I am interested in knowing other works of Portuguese anthropology but on the internet, I only find this work by Eusébio Tamagnini. Another curious detail is that Coon tries to create an image of the Portuguese from the south as being "darker" than those from the north based on this premise that "Celts and Germans invaded only the north". The irony of this is that the source cited by him shows that the Portuguese from Alentejo and Algarve are even lighter in skin and hair color. I would like to have access to the other works cited by Coon. I have the book El Hombre Espanol but apart from that, almost nothing.