Racial Analysis Calculator: female version

[Dienekes]

Can now be found at this link. Post your results as a reply if you want to.

[creug]

How does one get accurate measurments?
Best tool?
Are they taken straight across or around like ear around to ear?

[Dienekes]

Well, the best tool is calipers, but a sliding door is useful as an approximation. A ruler and a hard surface can be used as well. Just improvise, try to repeat measurements, and use mirrors or the help of other observers if you can, to make sure that measurements are taken "straight". Measurements should also be taken fairly "tight", and you should tie your hair in a knot, or separate it so that its thickness does not inflate the measurement.

[sinosuke]

I measured my sister, here are the results

Your cephalic index is: 73.7 (dolichocephalic)
Your height/length index is: 68.4 (hypsicephalic)
Your height/breadth index is: 92.9 (acrocephalic)
Your facial index is: 91.7 (leptoprosopic)
Your upper facial index is: 65 (leptene)
Your nasal index is: 60.4 (leptorrhine)
Your estimated endocranial volume is: 1308 cc (aristencephalic)
Your estimated brain weight is: 1198 gr


Euclidean Distance Mahalanobis Distance Cosine Similarity
Proto-Europoid: 31 47 -0.02
Mediterranoid: 25 24 0.06
Alpinoid: 25 19 -0.19
Irano-Nordoid: 20 8 0.27
Dinaroid: 26 17 -0.15


Your classification is Irano-Nordoid (using Euclidean distance), Irano-Nordoid (using Mahalanobis distance), and Irano-Nordoid (using Cosine similarity).

According to Euclidean Distance:

You are metrically closest to Plate 34, Figure 3 (distance = 13)
You are metrically furthest from Plate 6, Figure 2 (distance = 64)

According to Mahalanobis Distance:
You are metrically closest to Plate 16, Figure 3 (distance = 5)
You are metrically furthest from Plate 5, Figure 1 (distance = 133)

According to Cosine Similarity:
You are metrically closest to Plate 34, Figure 3 (similarity = 0.8)
You are metrically furthest from Plate 12, Figure 3 (similarity = -0.646)


where can i see the plates???

[Dienekes]

forum.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=36081

Plate 16: img97.echo.cx/my.php?image=themediterraneanraceinarabiapl.jpg

Plate 34:
img152.echo.cx/my.php?image=nordicsalteredbymixturewithsou.jpg

[Glenlivet]

Dienekes, can you explain why she is metrically close to both plate 34 and 16? The individuals in those plates are not similar looking.

Can we find out which similarity out of the three is the most relevant one?

[Dienekes]

The individuals in the two plates are metrically similar. Don't confuse metrical similarity with looking the same. People look different because they have different age, color, culture, etc.

As long as the woman who took this test looks narrow-faced, long-headed, narrow-nosed, etc., her classification is fairly accurate, otherwise there is some error in measurement. It should not be expected to see one's twin or brother in those pictures, but more or less a male person who has similar proportions.

[Glenlivet]

He Euclidean Distance is great. Isn't 13 too much?

I see what you mean. I do not confuse metrical similarity with culture, nor do I think this test can accurately tell your origin, although it may indicate something. They do not denote "races", like you have written in the lower part of result page. Do you believe in Otto Schlaginaufen and his belief in phenotypes and not sub-races per se?

However, what I find strange is that a figure from "The Mediterranean race in Arabia" can be close to a figure in "Nordics altered by Mixture with Southwestern Borreby and Alpine Elements". There are other examples where an individual is placed in plates that are made up of populations which are not closely related. Do you think this has to do with error in measurements, Coon's plates being wrong or the statistical methods used?

Maybe you have explained it in the past, and it might also be too complicated, but can you please tell me whether one statistical method is better than another, Euclidean, Mahalanobis or Cosine similarity? I assume that if all statistical probablities are similar, one can also assume that the accuracy is greater.

admin said:

The individuals in the two plates are metrically similar. Don't confuse metrical similarity with looking the same. People look different because they have different age, color, culture, etc.

As long as the woman who took this test looks narrow-faced, long-headed, narrow-nosed, etc., her classification is fairly accurate, otherwise there is some error in measurement. It should not be expected to see one's twin or brother in those pictures, but more or less a male person who has similar proportions.

[Lada]

Here are my results (hopefully I got right meassurements )


Your cephalic index is: 80.3 (mesocephalic)
Your height/length index is: 72.7 (hypsicephalic)
Your height/breadth index is: 90.5 (acrocephalic)
Your facial index is: 83.9 (euryprosopic)
Your upper facial index is: 54.7 (mesene)
Your nasal index is: 59.3 (leptorrhine)
Your estimated endocranial volume is: 1351 cc (aristencephalic)
Your estimated brain weight is: 1244 gr


Euclidean Distance Mahalanobis Distance Cosine Similarity
Proto-Europoid: 19 28 0.1
Mediterranoid: 19 31 -0.1
Alpinoid: 13 8 0.06
Irano-Nordoid: 15 11 -0.09
Dinaroid: 14 9 0.06


Your classification is Alpinoid (using Euclidean distance), Alpinoid (using Mahalanobis distance), and Proto-Europoid (using Cosine similarity).

According to Euclidean Distance:

You are metrically closest to Plate 13, Figure 1 (distance = 7)
You are metrically furthest from Plate 4, Figure 2 (distance = 51)

According to Mahalanobis Distance:
You are metrically closest to Plate 13, Figure 1 (distance = 3)
You are metrically furthest from Plate 10, Figure 5 (distance = 98)

According to Cosine Similarity:
You are metrically closest to Plate 13, Figure 1 (similarity = 0.66)
You are metrically furthest from Plate 14, Figure 2 (similarity = -0.718)

[egyptian7]

Results of Racial Analysis


Terminology is according to Vallois (1965).Endocranial volume is estimated according to the Lee-Pearson formula (Comas, 1960).Brain weight is estimated according to Welcker's capacity/cranial capacity tables (Baker, 1974)..


Your cephalic index is: 64 (hyperdolichocephalic)
Your height/length index is: 64 (hypsicephalic)
Your height/breadth index is: 100 (acrocephalic)
Your facial index is: 112.3 (hyperleptoprosopic)
Your upper facial index is: 61.4 (leptene)
Your nasal index is: 50 (hyperleptorrhine)
Your estimated endocranial volume is: 1244 cc (euencephalic)
Your estimated brain weight is: 1130 gr


Euclidean Distance Mahalanobis Distance Cosine Similarity
Proto-Europoid: 53 68 0.05
Mediterranoid: 52 59 -0.02
Alpinoid: 56 55 -0.42
Irano-Nordoid: 40 26 0.41
Dinaroid: 49 39 -0.03


Your classification is Irano-Nordoid (using Euclidean distance), Irano-Nordoid (using Mahalanobis distance), and Irano-Nordoid (using Cosine similarity).

According to Euclidean Distance:

You are metrically closest to Plate 16, Figure 3 (distance = 25)
You are metrically furthest from Plate 6, Figure 2 (distance = 93)

According to Mahalanobis Distance:
You are metrically closest to Plate 16, Figure 3 (distance = 18)
You are metrically furthest from Plate 5, Figure 1 (distance = 153)

According to Cosine Similarity:
You are metrically closest to Plate 16, Figure 3 (similarity = 0.88)
You are metrically furthest from Plate 14, Figure 3 (similarity = -0.793)

what does all this mean.. hahahha

[MC anunnaki]

Hmm, okay I hope I got the measurements right, I did them on myself.

My results:

Your cephalic index is: 73.8 (dolichocephalic)
Your height/length index is: 61.9 (orthocephalic)
Your height/breadth index is: 83.9 (metriocephalic)
Your facial index is: 90.9 (leptoprosopic)
Your upper facial index is: 60.6 (leptene)
Your nasal index is: 57.9 (leptorrhine)
Your estimated endocranial volume is: 1574 cc (aristencephalic)
Your estimated brain weight is: 1481 gr

--	Euclidean Distance	Mahalanobis Distance	Cosine Similarity
Proto-Europoid	26	17	0.54
Mediterranoid	57	122	-0.51
Alpinoid	39	55	-0.04
Irano-Nordoid	38	64	0.02
Dinaroid	37	42	0.11

Your classification is Proto-Europoid (using Euclidean distance), Proto-Europoid (using Mahalanobis distance), and Proto-Europoid (using Cosine similarity).

According to Euclidean Distance:
You are metrically closest to Plate 24, Figure 1 (distance = 18)
You are metrically furthest from Plate 10, Figure 5 (distance = 91)

According to Mahalanobis Distance:
You are metrically closest to Plate 24, Figure 1 (distance = 10)
You are metrically furthest from Plate 10, Figure 5 (distance = 223)

According to Cosine Similarity:
You are metrically closest to Plate 24, Figure 1 (similarity = 0.73)
You are metrically furthest from Plate 14, Figure 3 (similarity = -0.758)

[Agrippa]

Seems your measurements are too high. You could post your measurement data...I think you measured various things too high...

[MC anunnaki]

Here are my measurements:

Head length 210
head breadth 155
head height 130
minimum frontal 125
bizygomatic 132
bigonial 103
total facial height 120
upper facial height 80
nasal height 57
nasal breadth 33

What seems too high? I'm unsure of how to measure. I will redo it tomorrow, perhaps the measurements will be more accurate.

[Agrippa]

anunnaki said:

Here are my measurements:

Head length 210
head breadth 155
head height 130
minimum frontal 125
bizygomatic 132
bigonial 103
total facial height 120
upper facial height 80
nasal height 57
nasal breadth 33

What seems too high? I'm unsure of how to measure. I will redo it tomorrow, perhaps the measurements will be more accurate.

You know, to put it simple, Proto-Europid comes when your measurements are quite big, even if erroneously.

Its interesting that you measured many things more than I do, and your head breadth is like mine, thats not impossible, its just unlikely for a female. I have no small head either, am 189 cm tall, but still I'm below your results which would be much for male, quite a lot for a female.
How tall are you btw?

Face measurements are more realistic, though again I measure upper facial height the same as you do, but your total facial height is much smaller (120, one of the most realistic results), that would mean you would have almost no chin (max 40 mm). 40 mm wouldnt be that low in general, but compared with a midface/upper facial height of 80 mm...
Dont think they are right done...

Everything with 194 + is considered (at least in 1960's) very long for a male, just to bring it into a context.

[MC anunnaki]

I'm 166 cm. How are one suppose to do this measures? I just placed a ruler slightly in front of my face while standing in front of a mirror, measuring "2D" so to speak. Should I use a tape measure instead and place it on my head, bending it when necessary? I think I misunderstood how to measure...