Averages matter

No moving the goalposts.

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/eurasians_more_attractive_than_ugly_caucasians_not_average_caucasians_a_rep/

“blending pictures of Caucasians and Asians to form a hypothetical Eurasian composite”

not how miscegenation works

The authors wrote:

The disadvantage of computer-generated mixed-race composites is that they may not precisely capture the appearance of mixed-race individuals.

Damn right!  However, the major problem is not one of precision but of accuracy.  Caucasoid/Mongoloid hybrids generally look more Mongoloid than Caucasoid because: 1) Mongoloids have retained more ancestral traits such as robust cheekbonesrobust mandibles, and various primitive (ancestral) indices of facial flatness [American Journal of Physical Anthropology 111:105-134; year 2000]; 2) some trait variation is due to dominant and epistatic genes; and 3) the genes associated with primitive features likely comprise of an excess of dominant genes with respect to the newer mutations behind the more-recently-originating facial features disproportionately found among Caucasoids.

One quibble: Broad cheekbones are robust but not attractive.

They’re flat. Very very flat.

“However, in contrast to the first two experiments, the hypothetical Eurasian composite was not rated as more attractive than the Caucasian composite, a result that has been previously reported in a different study.”

When you didn’t skew your method enough to be PC.

“Therefore, the individuals that went into the average female Caucasian likely disproportionately included ugly, obese white women (possibly of mostly Irish ancestry).  In this case, the blending appears to have improved the attractiveness rating from ugly to unattractive.”

Yeah, that’s a fair test.

Figures 5 and 6 below show the pictures used in the third experiment.  One reason behind the attractiveness of the actual Eurasian composites (EurasianAV) in Figures 5 and 6 is the narrower face due to less prominent cheekbones, narrower than even the Caucasian!  The Eurasian facial breadth should be in between the European (narrow) and the Asian (broad).

They do that on purpose to rig the finding.

Supposed Cauc75 looks Celtic, ancient Briton type.

Fuck-all to do with even Eastern Europe!

Their upper fake average is noticably more white than the actual lower pic average.

Again, fellow Brits have more good looking people by volume than other European countries.

So-called Cauc75 looks like my relatives, so I know it’s full of shit to call that a mix.

Genetic isolation from the invasions of European landmass preserved our features.

That’s why so many models are from our isles over Denmark/France/Germany/Poland etc, same reason applies to Asians with Japanese models, more sought after (by genes) and have a higher volume of Lookers than Asia mainland.

They also rig what data they release, omitting profile data.

Notice that Gillian Rhodes has not addressed the attractiveness of facial profile (side view).  I’d be damned if Caucasians consider facial flattening resulting from Mongoloid admixture as more attractive than the attractive Caucasoid norm.  Additionally, how can the following traits resulting from Mongoloid admixture among Caucasians be considered more attractive than the norm among Caucasians: reduced height, less muscularity in males, slanted eyes, flatter buttocks, smaller breasts in females, relatively shorter limbs, relatively longer trunk, and a smaller penis?

How dare you know statistics.

How DARE you.

Flatter faces in whites are considered by neonate doctors a sign of genetic disease. If they spot it in a newborn white, they do other tests for specific things, most of which are linked to retardation of the mind too.

Nasal bridge low, flat midface, short nose – Eurasian traits.

Williams Syndrome nose:

Our gut reaction as white people against mongrelization (in this case, Eurasian mixing) is an aversion to severe genetic disorder.

It could be a coincidence or not, who knows? What does it matter, since an aversion is there?

And has every right to be.

As for the eyes….

Look up downies, harsh but true.

Similar eye shape, tilt angle and placement on face to the Asians without monolids too.

So… there’s that.

Whites don’t find flat faces or stretched, narrowed eyes attractive.

even in fellow whites like Cumberbatch (for the eyes).

Technically, it isn’t about race but avoiding deformed offspring (or deformed looking, who’ll meet the same sexual selection ‘success’).

Caucasoid v Mongoloid skull

Health of mixed race discussed here:

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_health_consequences_of_race_mixing

The authors controlled for age, sex, verbal IQ, grade point average, family structure (living with one or both parents), and family education

On the other hand, there exist several examples in the animal literature where matings between more genetically distant individuals within the same species/different races result in offspring that are less healthy than the parents, on average, [30-37]  and this cannot be blamed upon struggle with identity formation.  There also exist examples of hybrid vigor, but nothing remotely close to hybrid vigor is seen in Udry’s data. 

Udry’s data are compatible with the likelihood of race mixing improving one or more parental traits in some mixed-race offspring, who may be better off than both parents on multiple counts, provided that a greater number of mixed-race offspring are overall worse off than both parents.  The former possibility is surely not implausible given that the tremendous racial and species diversity out there implies that nature does not rule out equally-well functioning/better functioning novel genetic correlation structures, which could be brought about by race mixing, though the chances of improvement would typically be slim if more distant races are involved.

it’s selfish

the parents improve their own DNA at the expense of the child

It is seen in Table 2 that those identifying as mixed race have worse health than even populations known to be highly admixed (American black, Native American, Hispanic).  This could be accounted for if one assumes that first-generation hybrids who have the worst health/behavior problems would disproportionately not be very successful in reproducing, i.e., the healthier mixed offspring could, within a few generations, set up a mixed-race population that is healthier, on average, compared to the first-generation hybrids, but for this mixed-race population to approach or exceed the overall health of the original single-race populations, it would take many generations of [naturally] weeding out the unhealthy and settling toward a novel population-typical genetic correlation structure that corresponds to good health (more on this and on hybrid vigor in a subsequent post). 

Nature’s laughing at all of us, really. That time never exists.

This also assumes the mixed race want kids – no or fewer than average, from what I read and talking to them.

Zero or below replacement level, and lower numbers for kids they actually have.

To conclude, it is irresponsible for any scientific organization to pretend that race mixing has no adverse health effects and it is obviously inappropriate to portray race mixing as desirable or virtuous.

30. Aspi J: Inbreeding and outbreeding depression in male courtship song characters in Drosophila montana. Heredity 2000, 84 (Pt 3):273-282.
31. Edmands S, Feaman HV, Harrison JS, Timmerman CC: Genetic consequences of many generations of hybridization between divergent copepod populations. J Hered 2005, 96:114-123.
32. Garnier-Gere PH, Naciri-Graven Y, Bougrier S, Magoulas A, Heral M, Kotoulas G, Hawkins A, Gerard A: Influences of triploidy, parentage and genetic diversity on growth of the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas reared in contrasting natural environments. Mol Ecol 2002, 11:1499-1514.
33. Miller LM, Close T, Kapuscinski AR: Lower fitness of hatchery and hybrid rainbow trout compared to naturalized populations in Lake Superior tributaries. Mol Ecol 2004, 13:3379-3388.
34. Neff BD: Stabilizing selection on genomic divergence in a wild fish population. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004, 101:2381-2385.
35. Peer K, Taborsky M: Outbreeding depression, but no inbreeding depression in haplodiploid Ambrosia beetles with regular sibling mating. Evolution Int J Org Evolution 2005, 59:317-323.
36. Thornhill R, Moller AP: Developmental stability, disease and medicine. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 1997, 72:497-548.
37. Livshits G, Kobyliansky E: Lerner’s concept of developmental homeostasis and the problem of heterozygosity level in natural populations. Heredity 1985, 55 (Pt 3):341-353.

comment

Charles Darwin on race mixing; more here (don’t take this very seriously):

These latter facts remind us of the statements, so frequently made by travellers in all parts of the world, on the degraded state and savage disposition of crossed races of man. That many excellent and kind-hearted mulattos have existed no one will dispute; and a more mild and gentle set of men could hardly be found than the inhabitants of the island of Chilce, who consist of Indians commingled with Spaniards in various proportions. On the other hand, many years ago, long before I had thought of the present subject, I was struck with the fact that, in South America, men of complicated descent between Negroes, Indians, and Spaniards, seldom had, whatever the cause might be, a good expression.(1) Livingstone,- and a more unimpeachable authority cannot be quoted,- after speaking of a half-caste man on the Zambesi, described by the Portuguese as a rare monster of inhumanity, remarks, “It is unaccountable why half-castes, such as he, are so much more cruel than the Portuguese, but such is undoubtedly the case.” An inhabitant remarked to Livingstone, “God made white men, and God made black men, but the Devil made half-castes.”(2) When two races, both low in the scale, are crossed the progeny seems to be eminently bad.

Sixth commandment…..

thou shalt not adulterate

Thus the noble-hearted Humboldt, who felt no prejudice against the inferior races, speaks in strong terms of the bad and savage disposition of Zambos, or half-castes between Indians and Negroes; and this conclusion has been arrived at by various observers.(3) From these facts we may perhaps infer that the degraded state of so many half-castes is in part due to reversion to a primitive and savage condition, induced by the act of crossing, even if mainly due to the unfavourable moral conditions under which they are generally reared. 

nurture has been debunked (adoption studies)

[1] Journal of Researches, 1845, p. 71.
[2] Expedition to the Zambesi, 1865, pp. 25, 150.
[3] Dr. P. Broca, on ‘Hybridity in the Genus Homo,’ Eng. translat., 1864, p. 39.

A study on cruelty would be interesting.

But tongue posture varies by language (or race)

Given the lookism data and non-harmful, non-genetic nature of this, it seems fine.

However, it may only be possible to enhance certain races e.g. NW Europeans and native, dominant speakers of certain languages e.g. English, Old English.

I’m not messing with you. This once.

I haz receipts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronunciation_of_English_/r/
Peter Ladefoged wrote: “Many BBC English speakers have the tip of the tongue raised towards the roof of the mouth in the general location of the alveolar ridge, but many American English speakers simply bunch the body of the tongue up so that it is hard to say where the articulation is”.[6]

AHA.

The ‘orthotropic’ principle!

The extension to the IPA recommends the use of the IPA diacritics for “apical” and “centralized”, as in ⟨ɹ̺, ɹ̈⟩, to distinguish apical and domal articulations in transcription. However, this distinction has little or no perceptual consequence, and may vary idiosyncratically between individuals.[7]

Culturally, actually. Close.

How many of these guys with facial issues speak American, not proper English?

Not judging, per se, just ….noticing.

Why are the Brits considered generally better looking than comparable American men?

Could it be that, to us, they sound stupid because, among other things, they sound drunk? They literally sound like they’re slurring.

Again English English is the only real English, tongue posture is immensely important. It would be like using a hammer wrong and wondering why it hurts, this is important. Common Core is opposed to elocution lessons, wonder why.
And reminder, language is genetic in origin.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3355373/

“Mutation rates are required only for adding a time scale to both trees. Based on the topologies of trees generated from both the genetic and linguistic data, the inference of the parallel evolution of genes and languages in Caucasus is supported, despite controversies about the mutation rates.”

Parallel evolution, you can’t just take another race’s language and expect fluency on par with a genetic native. This might contribute to, say, Africans’ lower tests score, at least a little.

If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree etc.

The blogs full of historical handsome men leads me to believe Victorian English was particularly good for male facial structure (on women you don’t notice so much)


e.g. the difference to now in

“Flapped” or “Tapped” R: alveolar flap [ɾ] (About this soundlisten) (occurs in Scouse, most Scottish English, some South African, Welsh, conservative Irish and Northern England English, and early twentieth-century Received Pronunciation; not to be confused with flapping of /t/ and /d/)

A lot of Welsh models, almost untouched pristine language rearing, just saying. If a beautiful Welshman moves to America and adopts the accent, over time his facial beauty weakens.

18th and 19th century Americans (listen on youtube) sounded British. Rural British.

This faded out mid-20th century, with the rise of TV monoculture, when the American man’s face seemed to weirdly cave in like a child’s.

Gay men with excellent facial beauty (women admire) also have precise language, old-fashioned dialect. They know, they’re shallow.

How many Hollywood actors are posh?

Schools used to teach elocution. Why no longer? It’s part of speaking a language.

I’ve actually had to tell men that texting over talking will weaken their jaw.

They didn’t know. It’s a MUSCLE.

The digital native Millennials have overall worse jawlines than Gen X. Coincidence?

When old people age, they have fewer people to talk to, speeding up atrophy.

I have met researchers on these disparate topics so can bring you these threads, albeit short of resolution. Research needed, obviously. It is just really interesting. Like, even eating with cutlery made white people have more civilized jaws.

But forcing the proven brain delay of bilinguilism is bad for them, not to mention could be impossible due to differences.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2016/06/13/success-in-second-language-learning-linked-to-genetic-and-brain-measures/

Genetic variations of the COMT gene and a measure of the strength of the brain’s communications network — known as “white matter”— jointly accounted for 46 percent of the reason for why some students performed better than others in the language class.

So girls are better at it.

A waste of a class, must never be compulsory.

But being well-spoken literally makes men hotter to women. We can see it in how their face moves.

How many rappers look like mouth-breathers? [Whites invented rap, called flyting].

Flyting is a ritual, poetic exchange of insults practised mainly between the 5th and 16th centuries. The root is the Old English word flītan meaning quarrel. Examples of flyting are found throughout Norse, Celtic, Anglo-Saxon and Medieval literature involving both historical and mythological figures.

Crushes on matinee idols are not a coincidence. Speech, song, poetry. All of it helps.

Etiquette had benefits. I very much want to benefit from telling men this.

“Neotony” isn’t an Asian thing

If I don’t correct the pedophiles trying to feel normal, who will?

Humans are considered by some biologists to be a youthful looking species. We have weak (gracile) jaws compared to say, gorillas and large heads compared to say, chimps.
Stop trying to snowflake a biological possibility of prevalence.
It isn’t Asian or even characteristic of Asians (anime isn’t real!), it’s more prevalent in women than men (but common to humans) and can occur in Asians. However, most Asians have narrow, upturned (i.e. not round) and small eyes – thus cannot count under that heading. They are the least youthful on that feature!

You know, on average and before Daddy’s plastic pays for new plastic.
There are plenty of Asians who don’t have it (most by definition, attractive people are always a minority in their own population) and get the most surgery in the world to reset their masculine bone structure where possible in easy areas like the jawline and brow bone.

The technical un-PC term is “pedomorphic” so….

yeah…

Don’t go round telling people you find that hot.

Another error made on purpose by perverts?

Young isn’t the same as sexually immature. Men are sexually disgusted by signs of sexual immaturity so quit pushing that or show me some amazing, ironclad studies to back up your claim.

p.s. A fetish isn’t covered by sexual selection. Please stop getting evolution wrong, America! If you’d pass over the many white, black, whatever else women with larger eyes and smaller gracile (not under-developed/inbred/immature) chins then what you really have is Yellow Fever, a paraphilia (fetish). The Kibbe gamine type exists in all races and Asian culture expects women to fake it. So they do.

Youthful (but NOT immature!!!) features indicate health. That’s it. That’s all.
As in, an Asian looking really cute by plastic surgery with no waist, boyish hips and poor fertility doesn’t count under the biological model as fit. Because it isn’t real. Biology covers what is natural only. It also covers evolved historical conditions, new transportation and the race mixing that is possible isn’t covered because it’s novel. I’ve covered as much as possible that’s available to discuss online with the medical issues boyish women have with childbirth. If C-sections didn’t exist, a lot of Asian women would die, especially if the baby is half-white. Most women who go in for IVF are Asian (and have a higher failure rate than White women) and nobody knows why because nobody is allowed to study racial differences openly.

If they cared about these women, they’d study things to actually help them.

Fetishists miss the part about the eye shape and size because the common black eyes (again, contacts don’t count as genetic!) cue to their stupid brain that the woman is in love with them (pupil dilation) and not a threat.
Their cartoons look like white women, they get surgery/hair dye/makeup/skin glue/fake eyelashes to look like white women and their husbands cheat with Russian prostitutes. Actions speak louder than words.

What’s been called “psychological neotony” by some obvious pedophiles is emotional retardation and intellectual immaturity. That’s all retardation is, being stuck in an earlier stage of development. Humans have life stages, to not grow up is disturbed. They are just as bad as the vapid Valley girl.
If it’s vapid and stupid when white women do it, it’s the same when Asians do it. Stop white (yellow?) knighting. Fake femininity is obnoxious.
Neotony or in accurate anthropological terms, pedomorphology is allowed in society because we’re decadent, it is a sign of civilizational regression to encourage showy incompetence. It’s literally the female equivalent of the soyboy. They’re useless and act like children to get out of their citizen’s duties in life. And you’re falling for that?

It’s your life to ruin, I guess?

Black women have a tendency to act strong to get male resources, Asian women have a tendency to act weak to get male resources. White women can go either way with Eastern European acting weak and Western Europe acting strong(er).

But your hierarchy is fake science.

As a race, the “neotonous” features as characteristic belong to Europeans.
Show me a mathematical computer study that tops this.

Marquardt female ideal, sexually mature and youthful.

Proportionately large eyes, high, well-formed cheekbones, full but not huge lips and narrow mouth (youthful mouth indicator for femininity, not fullness which men have moreso) and a fine nasal bridge, soft brow bones and cherry chin, gracile thin jawline and thinner overall face shape closer to oval ideal, 2:1 ratio.

I drew this in case some bitch can’t do ratios.

Shapely philtrum (predicts uterine health), proportionate ears and nostrils (evolved to climate), healthy eye distance (neither too big or too small, beauty is healthy average because it shows a low mutation load)!

Fits closest to Europeans, matching up to corroborating dating site selection data and male preference attitude surveys who would preferentially date a European woman.

European fits it best based on youthful features, then Africans because they have large eyes and full lips and THEN Asians. The eye area is crucial for this. If you don’t have youthful eyes, you don’t have it.

One warning:

Looking like a baby also means looking like a boy, femininity is different. It is not childish, it’s womanly.

The classic beauty within her race does not look like a girl.

Femininity has certain features which coincide with youthful and healthy.

Women have longer, thinner faces including noses and paler skin than their racial male counterparts. This is constant throughout all races. Don’t look at models for an average, they’ve had work done.

Basic rundown for you to begin your own research.

I hate explaining the obvious. The white woman picture has filled lips, ignore that detail.

You might argue, where’s the Marquardt data for that?

Here’s the face-on beauty ideal for women from their global dataset.

Name that race.

Fully feminine and neotonous face with the contours shaded correctly.

Note the longer nose but more delicate bone structure (as opposed to yang angular).
Note the thinner face and reduced mouth width.

Basically everything above it.

Oval, check. Thin but not under-developed nose, check. Round curved brows, check. Narrow mouth with full lips (so incredibly proportionately feminine). Soft features including round normal eye shape, check. Heavily dimorphic, check. Long face compared to male average, check. Small but developed chin, check. High delicate cheekbones, check.

Example of those IRL.

This is so blitheringly obvious to me I struggle to put it into words.
I guess I’ve been trained to see this but did you never notice?

Really?

Pretty/cute/sexy are absolute shit compared to beauty.

Black women are higher on this trait of neotony than Asians and everyone talks about them like dirt when they don’t deserve it.

Africans have great eyelashes too, unlike the majority of Asian women.

The eye area is the hallmark of this trait. So African women can look great in 20s makeup.

I’m redpill which means I tell the truth, even when it isn’t about my own group.

Compare with the Asian standard model based on the dataset of averages.

Looks very masculine to me. Very angular, very strong, very yang.

No, neotony is the least Asian thing. I’m sure their surgeons will be pleased to hear you ever considered otherwise. One sign an Asian woman had surgery is that her chin now looks inbred and under-developed, like European royalty sometimes did.

Her larger Asian skull formed in the uterus and by chopping and sliding and trashing the bones to look more European, by proportion it now looks weird and doesn’t fit with the rest of the head’s bones.

There’s a definite look. Example in white people.

The chin looks weird. Not a good look.

Cute?

You can’t hide your real bone structure, even with surgery.

The skeleton is inside you.

Gene for nose shape found

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0516/190516-nose-shape

Figured I’d remind you this exists in light of  How To Judge People By What They Look Like’s detractors.

The four genes mainly affect the width and ‘pointiness’ of noses which vary greatly between different populations.

Populations = races

Pic or it didn’t happen

Compare to Marquardt’s work, which should be compared to character traits and faults in a meta-analysis.

Are people who fit this mask just good-looking or good people, period?

The researchers identified five genes which play a role in controlling the shape of specific facial features. DCHS2, RUNX2, GLI3 and PAX1 affect the width and pointiness of the nose and another gene – EDAR – affects chin protrusion.

See attractiveness tag.
Perception is invaluable.

“Few studies have looked at how normal facial features develop and those that have only looked at European populations, which show less diversity than the group we studied. What we’ve found are specific genes which influence the shape and size of individual features, which hasn’t been seen before.

try looking

“Finding out the role each gene plays helps us to piece together the evolutionary path from Neanderthal to modern humans. It brings us closer to understanding how genes influence the way we look, which is important for forensics applications,” said the first author of the report, Dr Kaustubh Adhikari, (UCL Cell & Developmental Biology).

Isn’t it a little superficial to assume the genes just code for appearance of the face and not the brain behind it? What about forehead size and brain size?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/sep/28/research.health

The study identified genes that are involved in bone and cartilage growth and the development of the face. GLI3, DCHS2 and PAX1 are all genes known to drive cartilage growth – GLI3 gave the strongest signal for controlling the breadth of nostrils, DCHS2 was found to control nose ‘pointiness’ and PAX1 also influences nostril breadth. RUNX2 which drives bone growth was seen to control nose bridge width.

hooks?

The genes GLI3, DCHS2 and RUNX2 are known to show strong signals of recent selection in modern humans compared to archaic humans such as Neanderthals and Denisovans; GLI3 in particular undergoing rapid evolution.

You should be forced to disclose any and all plastic surgeries before marriage, with photos of the real face. Otherwise it’s genetic fraud.

Guardian quote

Proper nourishment in early life and providing a stimulating intellectual environment are vital for achieving good brain growth and development and this lasts through life. In other words, brain growth in childhood is important not only in determining how bright you become but how bright you stay,‘ said Martyn.

‘That is the real message from this study: that we have to ensure infants and children are brought up in conditions that optimise brain growth – partly to provide us with lots of bright young adults but also to reduce risk of decline in higher mental function in old age.’

When I object to poverty, I see the long-time consequences.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/04/08/but-foreign-aid-is-important/

Lower national IQ. We’re sending all those nutrients overseas.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/01/07/population-r-selection-food-supply-and-famine/

Literally.

Gen Z grew up with organic food. Coincidence?

Study: The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty

Meta-analysis/Review paper. Top tier.

http://www.femininebeauty.info/f/rhodes.meta.analysis.pdf

What makes a face attractive and why do we have the preferences we do? Emergence of preferences early in development and cross-cultural agreement on attractiveness challenge a long-held view that our preferences reflect arbitrary standards of beauty set by cultures. Averageness, symmetry, and sexual dimorphism are good candidates for biologically based standards of beauty. A critical review and meta-analyses indicate that all three are attractive in both male and female faces and across cultures. Theorists have proposed that face preferences may be adaptations for mate choice because attractive traits signal important aspects of mate quality, such as health. Others have argued that they may simply be by-products of the way brains process information. Although often presented as alternatives, I argue that both kinds of selection pressures may have shaped our perceptions of facial beauty.
It confirms the obvious…
…..Femininity is the strongest component of female attractiveness, but it showed no association with health (although only one study has looked for this). Femininity may signal fertility rather than health per se (Johnston 2000, Johnston & Franklin 1993, Symons 1979). The reasoning is that high estrogen/androgen ratio are associated with both feminine characteristics (e.g., small jaw, full lips) and fertility. A preference for feminine faces, therefore, would target sexually mature females. Facial femininity could also signal individual differences in fertility in adult females, to the extent that femininity declines with age.
How men age in attractiveness wasn’t studied, nor cross-referenced with sperm quality, which pisses me off. I wanna see the data on that.
What do you expect, it’s mostly men conducting the studies in this field.
Recently, male facial attractiveness has been linked to genetic heterozygosity at sites involved in immune function. Future studies should determine which components of male attractiveness (masculinity, averageness, symmetry) mediate this link, and whether female attractiveness is also linked to heterozygosity at these sites. A more direct test of a link between attractiveness and immunocompetence could also be done by challenging the immune system.
However, this seems to reinforce a youth link in both sexes via immune function and cellular quality.