|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 4, 2006 16:43:26 GMT -5
The topic "progressiveness" was already discussed elsewhere. F.e. the people in the first row look quite similar to each other, so there should be a driving factor behind it. I didn't ask you about "progressiveness", I asked you how they are "versatile". Examples: dodona.proboards35.com/index.cgi?board=physanth&action=display&thread=1136397469Explanation for versatile physically: You might know the comparison of humans with other animals, stating that there are animals who run faster, climb and swim better or jump higher, but take it all together and combine it, you see that humans are physically versatile and not too much species could compete in all areas. To keep or even enhance that versatile abilities of humans is obviously positive for our potential. What body types are advantageous in that way can be proven if comparing with successful people in versatile sports and efficient soldiers/warriors in the past and present. Triathlon, Pentathlon, Decathlon, Biathlon, Tennis f.e. or French Foreign Legion members, military elite units like the German Kampfschwimmer etc. Especially in Europids progressive features are more often associated with a versatile body form and some progressive traits are more versatile for themselves, f.e. a rather long-narrow nose. Explained that in another thread. dodona.proboards35.com/index.cgi?board=anythinggoes&action=display&thread=1135366284&page=6
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Jan 4, 2006 16:49:11 GMT -5
I don't see how a "long and narrow nose" makes one "versatile".
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 4, 2006 17:08:32 GMT -5
I don't see how a "long and narrow nose" makes one "versatile". Its doesnt - taken for its own. Some might consider it more progressive or attractive - at least if in proportion I do so, but you are right. But the pictured people have other features too and medium-narrow headed individuals have more often a specific physique too - if a strong facial profile (deep eyes, prominent nose, positive chin), usually a correlation with unreduced structure and bones too. Short-broad faces and especially very short noses are more often correlated with infantilism, ontogenetic retardations and very brachymorphic tendencies, even adiposity. F.e. families with a high tendency towards adiposity have more often shorter noses, thats at least true for Europe. Considering certain body-psyche-hormonal factors we can speak about the psychic component too. Thread about constitutional variants: forum.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=8778 Compare average faces of Pyknic and Leptosomic women there. That are normal Pyknics, which are not adipose, but they have usually reduced bone-muscle and higher fat percentage and if this normal average would be more extreme, proportions even further shortened, you get the face of infantile or adipose individuals. Just compare the average faces of decathletes with that of very brachymorphic or infantile people = have a lower versatile performance.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Jan 4, 2006 17:32:34 GMT -5
Agrippa, do you know what versatile means?
|
|
Mr dark
Full Member
I can make your wishes come true
Posts: 127
|
Post by Mr dark on Jan 4, 2006 17:51:49 GMT -5
Agrippa, do you know what versatile means? This new year im going to start posting less and less and stop viewing less and less dodona because its ridiculous.But stuff like this (your question to agrippa) is hilarious makes me want to stay.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 4, 2006 17:55:22 GMT -5
Agrippa, do you know what versatile means? Yes. What I mean are all-round features which are under as much conditions as possible advantageous for a population. As I said already: A great example for the difference if looking at Hominisation would be to compare Australopithecus robustus with afarensis. I think you know what I mean. An infantile type is more one sided than mature-progressive variants which are more "human specialised" (higher investment, longer maturation, higher performance) like we can see it during the whole period of hominisation and superior in more areas.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Jan 4, 2006 18:25:15 GMT -5
Yes. What I mean are all-round features which are under as much conditions as possible advantageous for a population. A long and narrow nose is advantageous under as many conditions as possible? How come most of the world's inhabitants and most of the world's territory is not inhabited by people with long and narrow noses?
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 4, 2006 18:37:17 GMT -5
A long and narrow nose is advantageous under as many conditions as possible? How come most of the world's inhabitants and most of the world's territory is not inhabited by people with long and narrow noses? Because in many areas rather one sided pressure was the rule. Compare with the threads I made on Skadi and the dots which represent centres of progressive development and dominant forms (like Nordid, Mediterranid, Dinarid, Nordindid, Sinid, Silvid etc.). Usually we see in such areas constantly changing conditions, they being more affected by the Ice Age, climatic change, major migrations, group selection and seasons, as well as sociocultural developments. All of them have in any case clearly marked noses, clearly drawn - whereas both primitive and infantile types usually have a blurry delineation. About active-passive adaptation and progressive centres: forum.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=44767Nasal shape: forum.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=43261There are clear advantages in certain conditions for a longer-narrow nasal shape (not necessarily extreme) - explained in the thread. Once established the disadvantage even outside of the areas in which it evolved is small - so it doesnt get selected out usually once in existence. Clearly advantageous under many conditions, no strong disadvantage - only in very exceptional cases in which usually other positive traits become selected out too - usually associated with insufficient nutrition, downgraded social structures and contraselection.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Jan 4, 2006 18:42:44 GMT -5
There are clear advantages in certain conditions for a longer-narrow nasal shape (not necessarily extreme) - explained in the thread. I see, so the clear advantages of a longer-narrow nasal shape in certain conditions renders it more versatile?
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 4, 2006 18:48:29 GMT -5
I see, so the clear advantages of a longer-narrow nasal shape in certain conditions renders it more versatile? If feature A is advantageous under conditions 1-2, neutral in 3-4 and only slightly disadvantegous in 5, whereas other nasal shapes have a more narrow margin, well yes, more versatile than non-narrow-longer noses. Its always a question of alternatives, whats finally more versatile depends on how other features score in comparison. Almost nothing has just positive effects, even a bigger brain-higher intelligence is at least "more expensive" (more energy needed to build and maintain it) and will lead sooner to overheating, so in certain conditions a bigger brain-higher intelligence is negative, still in most it is advantageous and gives overall much more potential - therefore more versatile-generalist-advantageous too. Same goes for many other features. The point is that such a nasal shape means advantage in certain conditions and no serious disadvantage in most others whereas other nasal shapes have a serious disadvantage in various situations, including those in which (relatively) narrow-longer noses are advantageous - the advantage of broad-flat-short noses f.e. is very, very limited, and in many areas the disadvantage is very clear, same can't be said for long-narrow.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Jan 4, 2006 18:55:50 GMT -5
If feature A is advantageous under conditions 1-2, neutral in 3-4 and only slightly disadvantegous in 5, whereas other nasal shapes have a more narrow margin, well yes, more versatile than non-narrow-longer noses. That's completely a priori. I'd like to see some hard data. Second: a feature such as you're describing would be widespread in human populations because it is adaptive. But, that is not the case, and the nose types associated with your so-called "peak types" are infrequent for most of mankind and most of the Earth's territory.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 4, 2006 19:21:06 GMT -5
If feature A is advantageous under conditions 1-2, neutral in 3-4 and only slightly disadvantegous in 5, whereas other nasal shapes have a more narrow margin, well yes, more versatile than non-narrow-longer noses. That's completely a priori. I'd like to see some hard data. Second: a feature such as you're describing would be widespread in human populations because it is adaptive. But, that is not the case, and the nose types associated with your so-called "peak types" are infrequent for most of mankind and most of the Earth's territory. They are relatively new and unfortunately the pressure which lead to the advance stopped and was partly even inverted because of factors I mentioned in various threads. If the conditions of the Bronze Age would have lasted with high group selection, in many areas of the temperate zones we would see now only small rests of other variants living in small areas of retreat. Furthermore its not really the case, around the progressive centres, though already centuries of contraselection, they still dominate and we are speaking about billions. Just look at the map I made with the progressive centres. And I tried to point out that I said "relative" long-narrow. F.e. after that a high percentage of Sinids, Yakonids anyway and even of Tungids have a rather narrow-long nose if compared with the primitive sapiens strata. The original Indianids, especially those living in a the temperate climate under similar conditions as the progressive Eurasians developed it too. Than we see in Europids Nordid, Mediterranid, Dinarid, Orientalid, etc. with even more pronounced characteristics. Just look at the map and compare it. Obviously the examples shown are peak types, peak types are not average. Thats like speaking about intelligence, sure not everybody has an IQ of 130, still the point made is clear. Things would have gone step by step with strong group selection - like it was the case before too. Just look at East Asia and the expansion of Sinids. But again, we speaking about millions and millions of people, numbering even billions. Obviously "peak types" wouldnt be called that way if they would be average, they represent the next step and are on line with the progressive developments in humans we saw to this point so to say. You know from the records how frequent narrow-long noses were 40.000 years ago in the zones I mean and how widespread they were about 1500 (precolumbian times). Even in old Europeans we saw higher frequencies of primitive characteristics. To state some groups had "Subsaharan influence" just because they show primitive traits is a common mistake of some anthropologists. Obviously certain traits were bred out over time and to see the reason and the whole combination which was favoured under situations of maximum pressure, but with enough room (energy!) for development means to see what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Jan 4, 2006 22:25:37 GMT -5
They are relatively new and unfortunately the pressure which lead to the advance stopped and was partly even inverted because of factors I mentioned in various threads. If the conditions of the Bronze Age would have lasted with high group selection, in many areas of the temperate zones we would see now only small rests of other variants living in small areas of retreat. So, they're not so advantageous after all if they were selected against as you are asserting (again with no data). Do you know what group selection is?
|
|
|
Post by stella22 on Jan 4, 2006 23:10:02 GMT -5
Agrippa doesn't need data to back up his assertions. He persuades through volume; after reading several of his posts one tends to agree from sheer exhaustion and lack of interest.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jan 4, 2006 23:11:08 GMT -5
Seems more like an Inferior trait that was not selected as it was not versatile enough to survive. That type Agrippa idealizes is rather weak and somewhat effeminate ,its not good for many climates,especially harsh environments,and can damage/break easily.
|
|