The Bambutid nose is probably more adaptive than the Nordic nose which is probably sub-optimal for the northern climate.
Thats absurd since the later is much more widespread and first not just primitive but much more restricted to a very specific environment too.
I explained the reasons in various threads and contraselection worked against peak types, especially during the Little Ice Age, plagues and social factors in the continental areas and nowadays, working from at least the 19th century on mainly the social factor since people which are more social adapted, less risk taking, less effective and intelligent tend to have significantly more offspring than more desirable variants.
About the "Little Ice Age" read here:
forum.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=358871You can see the same in other regions of the world too where reduction and infantilisation were the one sided reaction if the group selection for ressources was limited and the individual energy level low.
The best results in human evolution come from strong group selection. So f.e. in small Ice Age the best results would have come if all groups would fought for the best places and ressources and the winner would have the most offspring. The worst situation is that in which the slowly starving and plagued have constantly to work and keeping social adapt - and those doing so get the most children. This leads to an increase of in many ways passive and less effective types - but thats what the situation of Medieval Europe and early modernity, industrial revolution, was about.
I dont mean the situation of massive group selection under favourable climatic conditions like in the time from the late Neolithicum to the early Iron Age can be the solution now, but at that time high performance types were more selected in most of Europe than anywhere else and in any other time.
Similar trend occured in other areas too though and on the base of the good results of the Ice Age selection (no farmer existence but mobile hunter gatherers - different response) in that time the progressive centres are clearly visible and primitive traits and one sided traits were selected out. F.e. the primitive element in Natufians would have had no chance on the long run in such a situation not matter if they introduce a cultural achievement.
But in the feudal contexts many farmers starved slowly or died because of plagues, were immobile and dependent, and if they were more intelligent and risk taking, f.e. became mercenaries, monks or priests, went to the cities, they might have had a better life or not, but they had most likely less children too than the starving farmer.
I can give an example from India: A man which has nothing and is a rikshaw puller, he lives on the street with his family and eats almost rice only - but he has 6 children and all 6 will survive most likely.
On the other hand I saw the opposite example for a very progressive upper caste physicians: Both males and females had no or just maximal 2-3 children.
That was not that worse in Medieval Europe probably, sources differ a lot, but in any case risk taking, idealistic, high performing, demanding and intelligent types were not really favoured like they would in a different social context.
Just because someone can survive plagues and hunger better doesnt make him generally more versatile and for sure not superior if the prize are heavy losses in many other areas.
I never said only Nordids can be progressive by the way and there are plenty of rather progressive Alpinoids and Baltids too, but Alpinisation and Baltisation AS TRENDS for itself, as trends towards reduction, brachymorphisation and infantilisation are negative - obviously I can find more balanced Alpinoids and Baltids and less balanced Nordids, thats not just a question of subrace since subrace is just defined by a certain set of features, "progressiveness" by another, this usually correlated strongly, but its still not the same.
At least in Sweden, especially Western Sweden and Eastern Norway its for sure in the majority, at least the relative - I would estimate, if considering mixed ones too, minimum 70+ percent.
Furthermore the same is true for most other types as well and Nordid shouldnt be underestimated in Central Europe.
Debrachycephalisation for itself produces rather more Cromagnoid types out of more "reduced looking" Alpinoids and Baltids, but real Nordids didnt increased significantly, I'd say rather the opposite at least for Western Europe. Probably birthrates were more balanced in Communist Eastern Europe with more births in the more progressive, attractive and intelligent categories than in Western Europe, but I have no sufficient data on that.
Would speculate in that direction though but that woudnt change the Nordid proportions significantly but rather conserved the conditions (of post war Europe) better than in the West (whats true for many sociocultural things as well).