Just to make it clear, my comment was sincere. I am indeed thankful for your work. The reason I said I cannot apply what I've read is that it's complicated. So, so much information that I had never heard. For instance, before yesterday I had no idea you can judge a woman's hormones by her backside. To you it is common knowledge but to me it's groundbreaking news. I knew some men like big bottoms but I thought they just liked big fat deposits or good muscle tone. I don't think that even men know it has anything to do with some bone hidden underneath. So, now I have to read your whole site, memorize the info, learn to apply it, and then starting reviewing at all the pictures I've seen in my life to look at them from new angles.
D.: Do not pay much attention to what you see in pictures of actual women when better information from certain studies is available. This is because the humans shown will have imperfections. It is better for you to figure out what shape change in the buttocks is associated with greater attractiveness by looking at the technical diagrams here: http://www.femininebeauty.info/beauty-as-shape [see figures 2 and 3].
On legs, this site is not done with all there is to say. Much remains to be added. There are bits and pieces on legs here and there. You can find information on leg-length to height proportion here: http://www.femininebeauty.info/leg-body-ratio [I made a major blunder in this article, which I corrected in a comment below, which is #6 or here is the link to the comment: http://www.femininebeauty.info/comment/3472#comment-3472 ]. Instead of the lower leg development shown in this woman, you would want the one shown on the woman on the right in this picture, which is a matter of proportion. You would not want a knock-kneed condition (genu valgum), nor a bow-legged condition (genu varum), nor back knees (knees extending backward; genu recurvatum). There is more to it, to be discussed later.
D.: Yours is an interesting comment. You are not the only person who, as you state, cannot apply to yourself what you have read. I cannot make sense of your comment either, which may be sarcasm, or sincere, or a combination.
I see on your site deep analyses of rib cages, hip bones and behinds but so far hardly anything on legs. Why is that? Don't you have some perfect formula for those, too, like when standing straight with your legs together, where they should be slightly touching and where not? Or, oh say, a thigh/knee ratio or something? I suspect that maybe you particulary fancy other body parts too much to care about this one, unless it's too skinny, but I believe this one's incredibly important.
And while I'm on it, it seems to me that your ideal of the female bottom is somehow the one without much muscle tone. Could be wrong on this one, too, but the pictures you praise the most are ones where the shape makes a double downward rainbow, the way that it couldn't be if muscles are lifting the whole structure. So, is there anything true about this one and what do you think about all those popular bottom-lifting exercises?
Whoever it is that wrote these comparisons, I like them to the point that I'm temped to send pictures of myself to get analyzed:) Not nude ones though.
I have to say that with me, your website achieved exactly what it's aiming at. This morning I woke up knowing how I looked and how I'm supposed to look. Now I haven't the slightest idea, I'm blank! I've never felt this way, such a tabula rasa. All I know is that what I thought to be beautiful, aesthetic, feminine, sexy and healthy - each of the concepts in my head has been demolished to tiny, indecypherable pieces and now I'm on my way to reconstructing them from scratch after I finish reading the site and comprehending all of this info. Today for the first time in my life I'm going to step ouside of home not knowing *how* I look, how harsh to judge myself and when I look at other females, I'll probably laugh because I'll not know *how* to feel and how to estimate which of us is doing better. It will be like meeting aliens or listening to a foreign language where I can't tell if what I hear is good or bad, let alone what it means. You may have saved me from becoming anorexically skinny. I learned so much that I had no idea about. Thanks to you, I might even consider skipping the extensive diet I was planning and instead focus on my skin and muscle tone. Thank you for everything!
Staci: The article is not about illustrating what kind of men are liked by women, but about issues in evaluating the masculinity of men. Some of these issues are best clarified by using examples of extremely muscular men.
I've always found Gillian Anderson attractive. Her eyes are especially attractive, and they're also appropriately distanced (not too close; not too far). Her complexion creamy and freckly, indicative of youth. Despite its capacious height, her forehead is also very smooth and tall and is proportional to the rest of her face. The gonial angles on her jawline are also somewhat soft in spite of her bulging chin.
However, Gillian does have some serious flaws. Her redeeming feminine facial features are counterbalanced by her contrasting masculine features. There is first the issue of her very bulging chin, giving her a longer face that could look horse-like. The horse-like features are compounded by her cartoonishly gummy smile and masculine cheekbones (of course, the positive feature seem to balance this out far better than someone like Sarah Jessica Parker). Furthermore, she has a very long, projecting nose and a slightly pronounced nasion which has only worsened with age. Although tragically flawed by very unfeminine features, she still has a somewhat feminine face.
Then, there's the trouble with her shape. As far as Gillian's body is concerned, she has a very barrel-like physique and flat buttocks. Although she may be physically fit, her broad shoulders appear look too masculine for a woman her stature. Furthermore, she has a very narrow pelvis, a broad rib cage, and an insufficiently narrow waist. Her sagging breasts, even at the age of 23, do her no favors, either.
I think you should have picked a better example to illustrate the type of male beauty that women like. Most women find hiper-muscular men unappealing. The physical male ideal for women is a man athletic muscled but not extremely as bodybuilders. We prefer male fitness models type. Men of your photos also show a low rating of facial attractiveness. I'll use an example more appropriate prototype of male beauty.
I posted the pictures of fitness model Marc Fitt. Great body and a very attractive face.
I wonder if anyone would like to look at www.fatdisorders.org or www.bigfatlegs.com to see what you are all talking about - the proper, real explanation!
Knightingale: I know I should have addressed it earlier, but I did not have the time. Jenna Talackova did place well though, ranking among the top 12 out of 61 or 62 contestants, and among the four designated Miss Congeniality.
Staci: The statement that you quoted from a different site was not made at this site, and neither was the error replicated here at any point. Your first comment was thus misplaced and should have been left, in response to the error, at futurepundit.com.
It is true that Northern European women tend to be taller, more prominent nosed and smaller breasted than Southern European women, but by no means are all Northern European women tall, prominent nosed and small breasted. Pigmentation is not relevant to my site because the focus is on skeletal traits, fat distribution and muscle structure. Speaking of skeletal traits, Northern European women tend to have finer facial features, partly explaining whey they are overrepresented among high-end models. I have only displayed Charlize Theron’s face, not her physique. I agree that her physique is nowhere close to being a good example of a feminine physique. On the other hand, whereas Monica Belluci has a better physique than Charlize Theron and is a good looking woman, neither her face nor her body is impressive enough for me to use as good examples of feminine beauty."
27 inch waist may be because of excess body fat? Are you nuts? Most women would love to have such a small waist. This person is hourglass if based completely on proportions. Of course, having a bit of excess in the lower body can happen, even with hourglass types. It depends on appearance as well as whether someone is overweight, underweight, or even just carrying a bit of extra. Also, this site in general is BS. A 2 inch difference between bust and hips is pretty close. It doesn't make someone a pear. What makes someone a pear is whether they gain all their weight in their thighs and hips, but none up top, as well as having a narrow ribcage and hips that are wider than the shoulders. Pears also have a defined waist. This body type is more common than the other types because women bear children and therefore carry extra in their lower half. Hourglasses are uncommon. The shoulders are aligned with the hips, and the bust is close to the same size as the hips but keep in mind, women with estrogen dominated body types (hourglass and pear) will gain saddlebags if they put on extra weight. Hourglass types gain elsewhere too, so tend to look more balanced, but the thighs and hips will likely still gain more than the upper body. So you can't base body type on just proportions unless you're at the ideal tone. The definition of rectangle is silly on this site. A waist ratio of less than 9 inches is extremely common but doesn't look rectangular at all, unless on a proportionally larger woman. Would a petite 5'3" 110 lb woman with 8 inches between her bust and hips be rectangular? Doubtful. More like hourglass or pear. Maybe body shapes aren't as important as we think
I met this glamour model when I was in Russia in 2010. I remember our first meeting in a coffee shop and then we were in a restaurant. Russian girls are fond of foreigners and would love to mingle with them easily.
I talked to Anita about my interest and I praised her beauty. An honest appraisal can do wonders in making the girl happy and attracted towards you.
I never expected to sleep around her in our first meet. I started slowly. I told her that I could read her eyes and hands. Russian girls are inquisitive. They like to learn about culture and arts. We exchanged phone numbers and emails addresses
I was waiting at least for 4 days for getting a call back from her, but she didn’t call me so then I called her. That would definitely surprised her and I instantly increased my chances to hang around and sleep with her.
I guess nobody will believe my story, so I posted a homemade picture that we took together
my name is...: Debating you is a waste of time. I am citing peer-reviewed journals and relatively recent publications. You cite wikipedia and your opinion! Wikipedia is worthless as a scholarly citation. On some important topics, it does not allow the general public to edit the page, giving us the same lies as the mainstream media. On other topics, someone like you can edit the page and then cite this page to support your arguments. And you are taking sentences from wikipedia and mixing them with your own sentences that wikipedia does not include!
Your first reply in response to my previous comment includes a reference to pedomorphy, which is distinct from neoteny, and a number of the authors you refer to, including you, don’t have a clue about the difference.
Wikipedia cites the decades-old opinion of Ashley Montagu and Steven Gould, not hard data substantiating their opinion. These proven liars, malicious-to-the-hilt persons worked hard toward obstructing physical anthropology research, and this should give you an idea of the worthiness of their opinion regarding physical anthropology. And if you ever bother to read the published article on neoteny I referred you to, you will notice that Gould was debunked on neoteny applying to human face shape; it was found that neoteny only applies to face size in humans, and this is where East Asians are bigger than Europeans.
Wikipedia cites an obscure book describing Asians as having less tooth mass, and there is no telling if there are any hard data in the book to support the assertion. Here is a published peer-reviewed journal article showing that East Asians have larger teeth than Europeans: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15838862 [published in 2005, top-ranked physical anthropology journal].
One of your lengthy comments is merely your alleged observations presented as facts. This includes a claim that east Asians are the least prognathic (jaw protrusion), and as a reference, I am supposed to refer to the comment of some white nationalist!
Hey Barbarella, (felt like calling you Barbz, I feel so familiar with you having read so many of your comments already)
I'm a German Philology student, and I took Scandinavian Studies for a term, and one of the first things we learned in BOTH fields is that Finns are not classified as Indo-europeans, i.e. they have no relation whatsoever to Germans and Scandinavians. As for Icelanders (I hope that's the correct term), they are actually historically from Norway, they (mostly) migrated to Iceland during King Harald's rule (I could be wrong about the King Harald bit, but it was definitely during the rule of a cruel king).
Love, Di
P.S. I tried to find out from Wiki about King Harald, but it doesn't mention him anywhere (really ought to do a more extensive, historically reliable search), though they do mention that there were a sprinkling of celtic settlers and settlers from other Scandinavian countrie as well
The most neotenic people on the planet are the East Asians and the most neotenic East Asians are the Koreans, who have the most subcutaneous fat,
followed closely by the Han Chinese and other Mongoloids. Just like babies, East Asians have a round head with a flat chubby face,
a small nose, short arms and legs, very little body hair, and extra fat evenly distributed over their entire body. Their “third eyelid” (epicanthic fold)
and smaller eye opening help to protect their eyes from the cold. Clearly, these people evolved to live in a cold climate and, since they became so neotenic,
that suggests that neoteny was advantageous in that climate. (Chap. 4, Rule 11).
The European lineage became neotenic as well, but much less so than the Asians. Europeans have longer heads, more hair, longer limbs, and the
fat under their skin is less uniformly distributed; instead, it accumulates in unsightly bunches around the abdomen, hips, and thighs, providing a
good source of income for the weight-loss industry. Most Africans are still less neotenic, but their lineage is more complicated, giving different
African populations some very different traits. (Chap. 26)
With each advance in evolution, Nature tends to favor infantilism over senility. Babies, for instance, absorb information at a far greater rate than adults.
One sees infantile traits among the races of mankind. The sub-Saharan Africans are the oldest genetic group of mankind. The next-oldest are the Caucasians.
Unlike the Africans, the Caucasians retained infantile traits into adulthood: Like blue eyes (which many babies have but which disappear upon maturity).
The whites retain this "infantile trait" into adulthood. Likewise, the most recent race [the Mongoloid] has even more infantile traits:
The epicanthic fold over the eyes [which appears in most babies but disappears soon enough]. Yet, in the Asians, this "infantile trait" remains, as do other
body-features: Shortness of stature, greater mental elasticity which results in higher IQ's, etc.
This phenomenon has been observed in geniuses of all racial stripes, as well: They tend to be child-like . . . or in Mozart's case "childISH". These men of
superior intellect seem to be caught in a prolonged adolescence--a superannuated childhood--and, as a result, their minds remain as absorbant as a baby's.
Picasso, Einstein, Beethoven: All short men with childlike physiques and big brains.
If neotony is the main determinant of mental plasticity and creativity we ought to expect East Asians to be more creative than anyone.
However, for all their I.Q. and mental stamina, East Asians are more rigid in their thinking than Europeans. Good thing it's gradually changing.
Alright. This has to be my final post. This is going round in circles.
I'm losing interest now also and gonna be busy. Anyways, thanks for the discussion!
P.S. In real life, I DON'T put down other races, it's just online racial debates. ;)
Just to make it clear, my comment was sincere. I am indeed thankful for your work. The reason I said I cannot apply what I've read is that it's complicated. So, so much information that I had never heard. For instance, before yesterday I had no idea you can judge a woman's hormones by her backside. To you it is common knowledge but to me it's groundbreaking news. I knew some men like big bottoms but I thought they just liked big fat deposits or good muscle tone. I don't think that even men know it has anything to do with some bone hidden underneath. So, now I have to read your whole site, memorize the info, learn to apply it, and then starting reviewing at all the pictures I've seen in my life to look at them from new angles.
D.: Do not pay much attention to what you see in pictures of actual women when better information from certain studies is available. This is because the humans shown will have imperfections. It is better for you to figure out what shape change in the buttocks is associated with greater attractiveness by looking at the technical diagrams here: http://www.femininebeauty.info/beauty-as-shape [see figures 2 and 3].
On legs, this site is not done with all there is to say. Much remains to be added. There are bits and pieces on legs here and there. You can find information on leg-length to height proportion here: http://www.femininebeauty.info/leg-body-ratio [I made a major blunder in this article, which I corrected in a comment below, which is #6 or here is the link to the comment: http://www.femininebeauty.info/comment/3472#comment-3472 ]. Instead of the lower leg development shown in this woman, you would want the one shown on the woman on the right in this picture, which is a matter of proportion. You would not want a knock-kneed condition (genu valgum), nor a bow-legged condition (genu varum), nor back knees (knees extending backward; genu recurvatum). There is more to it, to be discussed later.
I do not know about bottom-lifting exercises.
D.: Yours is an interesting comment. You are not the only person who, as you state, cannot apply to yourself what you have read. I cannot make sense of your comment either, which may be sarcasm, or sincere, or a combination.
I see on your site deep analyses of rib cages, hip bones and behinds but so far hardly anything on legs. Why is that? Don't you have some perfect formula for those, too, like when standing straight with your legs together, where they should be slightly touching and where not? Or, oh say, a thigh/knee ratio or something? I suspect that maybe you particulary fancy other body parts too much to care about this one, unless it's too skinny, but I believe this one's incredibly important.
And while I'm on it, it seems to me that your ideal of the female bottom is somehow the one without much muscle tone. Could be wrong on this one, too, but the pictures you praise the most are ones where the shape makes a double downward rainbow, the way that it couldn't be if muscles are lifting the whole structure. So, is there anything true about this one and what do you think about all those popular bottom-lifting exercises?
Whoever it is that wrote these comparisons, I like them to the point that I'm temped to send pictures of myself to get analyzed:) Not nude ones though.
With those overly high cheekbones, Gisele Bundchen looks like a horse, folks.
If you notice, Gillian also has asymmetric eyes.
I have to say that with me, your website achieved exactly what it's aiming at. This morning I woke up knowing how I looked and how I'm supposed to look. Now I haven't the slightest idea, I'm blank! I've never felt this way, such a tabula rasa. All I know is that what I thought to be beautiful, aesthetic, feminine, sexy and healthy - each of the concepts in my head has been demolished to tiny, indecypherable pieces and now I'm on my way to reconstructing them from scratch after I finish reading the site and comprehending all of this info. Today for the first time in my life I'm going to step ouside of home not knowing *how* I look, how harsh to judge myself and when I look at other females, I'll probably laugh because I'll not know *how* to feel and how to estimate which of us is doing better. It will be like meeting aliens or listening to a foreign language where I can't tell if what I hear is good or bad, let alone what it means. You may have saved me from becoming anorexically skinny. I learned so much that I had no idea about. Thanks to you, I might even consider skipping the extensive diet I was planning and instead focus on my skin and muscle tone. Thank you for everything!
Richard, Gillian has not aged well at all, and her feminine features deteriorated and her masculine features augmented. Her features were already unfeminine even as a child (albeit she still had some femininity as you mentioned). Just have a look at this collage of Gillian with pictures throughout her childhood:
![]()
http://23.imagebam.com/download/fFsd4KxIFgnkFZ_np8iz4g/10505/105041221/ABC.jpg
![]()
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4ugfd3ngT1rpuubxo3_400.jpg
![]()
http://www.gilliananderson.ws/spring/images/turning1.jpg
![]()
http://www.gilliananderson.ws/spring/images/turning3.jpg
And here's a very unflattering photo from one of her first films:
Perhaps she's angle-dependent, as her features look much more rounded here:
Staci: The article is not about illustrating what kind of men are liked by women, but about issues in evaluating the masculinity of men. Some of these issues are best clarified by using examples of extremely muscular men.
I've always found Gillian Anderson attractive. Her eyes are especially attractive, and they're also appropriately distanced (not too close; not too far). Her complexion creamy and freckly, indicative of youth. Despite its capacious height, her forehead is also very smooth and tall and is proportional to the rest of her face. The gonial angles on her jawline are also somewhat soft in spite of her bulging chin.
However, Gillian does have some serious flaws. Her redeeming feminine facial features are counterbalanced by her contrasting masculine features. There is first the issue of her very bulging chin, giving her a longer face that could look horse-like. The horse-like features are compounded by her cartoonishly gummy smile and masculine cheekbones (of course, the positive feature seem to balance this out far better than someone like Sarah Jessica Parker). Furthermore, she has a very long, projecting nose and a slightly pronounced nasion which has only worsened with age. Although tragically flawed by very unfeminine features, she still has a somewhat feminine face.
Then, there's the trouble with her shape. As far as Gillian's body is concerned, she has a very barrel-like physique and flat buttocks. Although she may be physically fit, her broad shoulders appear look too masculine for a woman her stature. Furthermore, she has a very narrow pelvis, a broad rib cage, and an insufficiently narrow waist. Her sagging breasts, even at the age of 23, do her no favors, either.
I think you should have picked a better example to illustrate the type of male beauty that women like. Most women find hiper-muscular men unappealing. The physical male ideal for women is a man athletic muscled but not extremely as bodybuilders. We prefer male fitness models type. Men of your photos also show a low rating of facial attractiveness. I'll use an example more appropriate prototype of male beauty.
I posted the pictures of fitness model Marc Fitt. Great body and a very attractive face.
I wonder if anyone would like to look at www.fatdisorders.org or www.bigfatlegs.com to see what you are all talking about - the proper, real explanation!
Knightingale: I know I should have addressed it earlier, but I did not have the time. Jenna Talackova did place well though, ranking among the top 12 out of 61 or 62 contestants, and among the four designated Miss Congeniality.
Personally I think the young lady pictured above is very attractive. I am definitely a heterosexual man.
this is kind of old news after she didn't make it anyway. I am surprised to this being mentioned now instead of a month ago.
Staci: The statement that you quoted from a different site was not made at this site, and neither was the error replicated here at any point. Your first comment was thus misplaced and should have been left, in response to the error, at futurepundit.com.
I meant to your comment on the forum http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002092.html
I quote:
"Erik Holland said at March 3, 2006 4:15 AM:
It is true that Northern European women tend to be taller, more prominent nosed and smaller breasted than Southern European women, but by no means are all Northern European women tall, prominent nosed and small breasted. Pigmentation is not relevant to my site because the focus is on skeletal traits, fat distribution and muscle structure. Speaking of skeletal traits, Northern European women tend to have finer facial features, partly explaining whey they are overrepresented among high-end models. I have only displayed Charlize Theron’s face, not her physique. I agree that her physique is nowhere close to being a good example of a feminine physique. On the other hand, whereas Monica Belluci has a better physique than Charlize Theron and is a good looking woman, neither her face nor her body is impressive enough for me to use as good examples of feminine beauty."
27 inch waist may be because of excess body fat? Are you nuts? Most women would love to have such a small waist. This person is hourglass if based completely on proportions. Of course, having a bit of excess in the lower body can happen, even with hourglass types. It depends on appearance as well as whether someone is overweight, underweight, or even just carrying a bit of extra. Also, this site in general is BS. A 2 inch difference between bust and hips is pretty close. It doesn't make someone a pear. What makes someone a pear is whether they gain all their weight in their thighs and hips, but none up top, as well as having a narrow ribcage and hips that are wider than the shoulders. Pears also have a defined waist. This body type is more common than the other types because women bear children and therefore carry extra in their lower half. Hourglasses are uncommon. The shoulders are aligned with the hips, and the bust is close to the same size as the hips but keep in mind, women with estrogen dominated body types (hourglass and pear) will gain saddlebags if they put on extra weight. Hourglass types gain elsewhere too, so tend to look more balanced, but the thighs and hips will likely still gain more than the upper body. So you can't base body type on just proportions unless you're at the ideal tone. The definition of rectangle is silly on this site. A waist ratio of less than 9 inches is extremely common but doesn't look rectangular at all, unless on a proportionally larger woman. Would a petite 5'3" 110 lb woman with 8 inches between her bust and hips be rectangular? Doubtful. More like hourglass or pear. Maybe body shapes aren't as important as we think
Melisande: You are very beautiful. Erik is a dumbass. Your youthfulness is an advantage. You are perfect just the way you are!
Did she give you permission to brag about your conquest? If not, you are violating this woman's privacy.
I met this glamour model when I was in Russia in 2010. I remember our first meeting in a coffee shop and then we were in a restaurant. Russian girls are fond of foreigners and would love to mingle with them easily.
I talked to Anita about my interest and I praised her beauty. An honest appraisal can do wonders in making the girl happy and attracted towards you.
I never expected to sleep around her in our first meet. I started slowly. I told her that I could read her eyes and hands. Russian girls are inquisitive. They like to learn about culture and arts. We exchanged phone numbers and emails addresses
I was waiting at least for 4 days for getting a call back from her, but she didn’t call me so then I called her. That would definitely surprised her and I instantly increased my chances to hang around and sleep with her.
I guess nobody will believe my story, so I posted a homemade picture that we took together
my name is...: Debating you is a waste of time. I am citing peer-reviewed journals and relatively recent publications. You cite wikipedia and your opinion! Wikipedia is worthless as a scholarly citation. On some important topics, it does not allow the general public to edit the page, giving us the same lies as the mainstream media. On other topics, someone like you can edit the page and then cite this page to support your arguments. And you are taking sentences from wikipedia and mixing them with your own sentences that wikipedia does not include!
Your first reply in response to my previous comment includes a reference to pedomorphy, which is distinct from neoteny, and a number of the authors you refer to, including you, don’t have a clue about the difference.
Wikipedia cites the decades-old opinion of Ashley Montagu and Steven Gould, not hard data substantiating their opinion. These proven liars, malicious-to-the-hilt persons worked hard toward obstructing physical anthropology research, and this should give you an idea of the worthiness of their opinion regarding physical anthropology. And if you ever bother to read the published article on neoteny I referred you to, you will notice that Gould was debunked on neoteny applying to human face shape; it was found that neoteny only applies to face size in humans, and this is where East Asians are bigger than Europeans.
Wikipedia cites an obscure book describing Asians as having less tooth mass, and there is no telling if there are any hard data in the book to support the assertion. Here is a published peer-reviewed journal article showing that East Asians have larger teeth than Europeans: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15838862 [published in 2005, top-ranked physical anthropology journal].
One of your lengthy comments is merely your alleged observations presented as facts. This includes a claim that east Asians are the least prognathic (jaw protrusion), and as a reference, I am supposed to refer to the comment of some white nationalist!
Look at Table 3 and Figure 2 in the following publication by Hanihara, in 2000, in a top-ranked peer-reviewed physical anthropology journal: http://www.femininebeauty.info/hanihara.flatness.pdf { actual publication reference: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10618591 }
Clearly, East Asians have more prognathic jaws than Europeans, on average.
Hey Barbarella, (felt like calling you Barbz, I feel so familiar with you having read so many of your comments already)
I'm a German Philology student, and I took Scandinavian Studies for a term, and one of the first things we learned in BOTH fields is that Finns are not classified as Indo-europeans, i.e. they have no relation whatsoever to Germans and Scandinavians. As for Icelanders (I hope that's the correct term), they are actually historically from Norway, they (mostly) migrated to Iceland during King Harald's rule (I could be wrong about the King Harald bit, but it was definitely during the rule of a cruel king).
Love, Di
P.S. I tried to find out from Wiki about King Harald, but it doesn't mention him anywhere (really ought to do a more extensive, historically reliable search), though they do mention that there were a sprinkling of celtic settlers and settlers from other Scandinavian countrie as well
The most neotenic people on the planet are the East Asians and the most neotenic East Asians are the Koreans, who have the most subcutaneous fat,
followed closely by the Han Chinese and other Mongoloids. Just like babies, East Asians have a round head with a flat chubby face,
a small nose, short arms and legs, very little body hair, and extra fat evenly distributed over their entire body. Their “third eyelid” (epicanthic fold)
and smaller eye opening help to protect their eyes from the cold. Clearly, these people evolved to live in a cold climate and, since they became so neotenic,
that suggests that neoteny was advantageous in that climate. (Chap. 4, Rule 11).
The European lineage became neotenic as well, but much less so than the Asians. Europeans have longer heads, more hair, longer limbs, and the
fat under their skin is less uniformly distributed; instead, it accumulates in unsightly bunches around the abdomen, hips, and thighs, providing a
good source of income for the weight-loss industry. Most Africans are still less neotenic, but their lineage is more complicated, giving different
African populations some very different traits. (Chap. 26)
With each advance in evolution, Nature tends to favor infantilism over senility. Babies, for instance, absorb information at a far greater rate than adults.
One sees infantile traits among the races of mankind. The sub-Saharan Africans are the oldest genetic group of mankind. The next-oldest are the Caucasians.
Unlike the Africans, the Caucasians retained infantile traits into adulthood: Like blue eyes (which many babies have but which disappear upon maturity).
The whites retain this "infantile trait" into adulthood. Likewise, the most recent race [the Mongoloid] has even more infantile traits:
The epicanthic fold over the eyes [which appears in most babies but disappears soon enough]. Yet, in the Asians, this "infantile trait" remains, as do other
body-features: Shortness of stature, greater mental elasticity which results in higher IQ's, etc.
This phenomenon has been observed in geniuses of all racial stripes, as well: They tend to be child-like . . . or in Mozart's case "childISH". These men of
superior intellect seem to be caught in a prolonged adolescence--a superannuated childhood--and, as a result, their minds remain as absorbant as a baby's.
Picasso, Einstein, Beethoven: All short men with childlike physiques and big brains.
If neotony is the main determinant of mental plasticity and creativity we ought to expect East Asians to be more creative than anyone.
However, for all their I.Q. and mental stamina, East Asians are more rigid in their thinking than Europeans. Good thing it's gradually changing.
Alright. This has to be my final post. This is going round in circles.
I'm losing interest now also and gonna be busy. Anyways, thanks for the discussion!
P.S. In real life, I DON'T put down other races, it's just online racial debates. ;)
Pages