ferget it.. waste of time..

[Agrippa]

How many people realize that it's fundamentally unreasonable to attribute anyone who doesn't look like a Whoopi Goldberg or Kim Jung Il to looking "Caucasoid", really?

If it would be like that, you would be right, but first a short introduction:

There is a typical form, a variation inside a tolerance and borderline cases. To name typical forms doesnt imply to say that all others are clearly mixed, but if they show clearly defined traits of another type and admixture is possible, even likely, things are clear.

[Agrippa]

human2 said:

1. And what would be these types which are outside of natural variation?

They are no types outside of natural variation, they are outside of the variation of a type or population. F.e. Aethiopids are neither Europid nor Negrid, though they are closer to the NegrOid category. Still by specialisation they are mostly intermediate.

What if a group would have split of a main body which went through various stages of selection afterwards, same race? Obviously not. They had the same ancestry but split up later and formed new racial forms - new specialisations, with or without admixture.

2. And do you apply this same standard to Europe/West Asia?

Yes.

[human2]

agrippa said:

human2 said:

They are no types outside of natural variation,

You know what I mean.

they are outside of the variation of a type or population. F.e. Aethiopids are neither Europid nor Negrid, though they are closer to the NegrOid category. Still by specialisation they are mostly intermediate.

What if a group would have split of a main body which went through various stages of selection afterwards, same race? Obviously not. They had the same ancestry but split up later and formed new racial forms - new specialisations, with or without admixture.

And how would you go about proving what isn't or is within the variation of a population?

Thge correct way is to look at genetics, population history, the fossil record, anthropological studies... The type of primary literature people like Dienekes, Charlie Bass, and I cite.

You don't arrive at anything by posting a picture of an individual here and an individual there, especially when you don't even have an idea of what certain regions look like. How many times have the comments of someone else, especially an Asian who've been to those regions, contradicted your own assessments?

[Agrippa]

First I look at modern studies too and know them, but prefer them only if they give a new insight. Racial specialisation explained in another thread.

And how would you go about proving what isn't or is within the variation of a population?

Deviations from the mean of a representative population or selected group of typical individuals, probably looking at the archaeological record as well indeed, deviations of non-pathological (normal) character obviously and comparing them with the typical populations and neighboring types to see if they deviate in the respective direction or are a category on their own.

Well, you are free to post data, I even want you to do so, if you have data which is important for reconstructing or explaining racial variation, different trends and specialisations, you are welcomed, I can do so too. But I dont see too much.

[human2]

Oh please, I've posted tons of stuff in the past. There's also tons of literature on Quetzalcoatl.

I don't post much because it's useless. You'll still go on with the nonsense. For example, you still go on with your "Nordsinid" dolichocephalic nonsense despite me posting two studies.

The studies shows that the tallest individuals in Korea and Japan are more brachycephalic than shorter people. Since you acknowledge there are "Nordsinids" in Japan, logic would require that "Nordsinids" are either short or brachycephalic.

Has logic stopped you?

[Educate Me]

he is a scot

[Planet Asia]

agrippa said:

How many people realize that it's fundamentally unreasonable to attribute anyone who doesn't look like a Whoopi Goldberg or Kim Jung Il to looking "Caucasoid", really?

There is a typical form, a variation inside a tolerance and borderline cases.

Typical nonsense, what you are calling a typical type is just another dropn in the bucket of variation. Like whith so-called "Negrids", the so called typical type you speak of with stereotypical features is on a variant, not a typical type of an ancestral type that once inhabited the Sahara region

To name typical forms doesnt imply to say that all others are clearly mixed, but if they show clearly defined traits of another type and admixture is possible, even likely, things are clear.

But thats exactly what you're saying in so many words. If it doesn't mean they're mixed, please explain how they're how types that don't look like the typical type acquired their features and by definition if there is a typical type that means all other who deviate must be variants of this typical which implies a relationship far back in the fossil record. In East Africa this clearly isn't the case where fossil record people identical to same type that are living there now go back as far as the Late Pleistocene and archaeology, genetics, and culture all tie them to a distinct Africa origin.

The same people who talk about typical types only speak so of Mongoloids and so called Negrids, but *NEVER* about so called Europoids, thats the big contradiction and folly of speaking of so called typical types, whats good for the goose is also good for the gander.

[Agrippa]

But thats exactly what you're saying in so many words. If it doesn't mean they're mixed, please explain how they're how types that don't look like the typical type acquired their features and by definition if there is a typical type that means all other who deviate must be variants of this typical which implies a relationship far back in the fossil record. In East Africa this clearly isn't the case where fossil record people identical to same type that are living there now go back as far as the Late Pleistocene and archaeology, genetics, and culture all tie them to a distinct Africa origin.

The same people who talk about typical types only speak so of Mongoloids and so called Negrids, but *NEVER* about so called Europoids, thats the big contradiction and folly of speaking of so called typical types, whats good for the goose is also good for the gander.

Thats not true, I use the same standards for Europids and in the past some anthropologists were even more drastical and spoke about f.e Alpinoids being half Mongoloid whats obviously nonsense.

However, concerning Aethiopids, lets assume for one moment you are right and than with the exception of some subtypes and ethnic groups at the horn of Africa most are not mixed, but are the surviving members of a very old form in East Africa, what makes them Negrid?

The Negrid type expanded from West Africa, from the grasslands and tropical zones, by specialisation Aethiopids on the other hand became only influenced, mainly by admixture, but never were neither are fully Negrid.

I don't post much because it's useless. You'll still go on with the nonsense. For example, you still go on with your "Nordsinid" dolichocephalic nonsense despite me posting two studies.

The studies shows that the tallest individuals in Korea and Japan are more brachycephalic than shorter people. Since you acknowledge there are "Nordsinids" in Japan, logic would require that "Nordsinids" are either short or brachycephalic.

It could also mean that there is another form, probably the result of mixture, which is even taller than local Sinid forms. On the other hand the same couldnt (at least shouldnt) be true for the Hwangho region and Manchuria in China which are more representative for the typical Nordsinids.
Furthermore Nordsinids are mostly mesocephalic with dolichocephalic tendencies.