The Alpine race. By Earnest A. Hooton.

[Yago]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

This is just humorous. Nordic phenotypes associated with schizophrenia and bums? You are an idiot.

Calm down. He already made it clear that he said it tongue-in-cheek.

No need to go schizophrenic about it.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Dr Fred

No, it's purely tongue-in-cheek, it is to counter balance the fact nordics are seen as flawless beings.
Anyway there is a bit of truth in it from my experience... When I look at the bums in my area, they are particularly nordic looking for some reasons. Some nordic traits are associated with Schizophrenia.

They are not directly associated with Schizophrenia, but there are certain similarities between the behaviour of Schizophrenic persons when they are not in a phase of their mental illness or before it came up and schizoid behaviour, which in turn is, in certain respects, the absolute extreme of normal schizothymic variation.

The whole schizothymic spectrum is more inclined to act in extremes, which means there schizothymic individuals which are uber-clean, even neurotic about hygiene, whereas others are dirty and dont care at all. Both are unhealthy extremes which can be explained by the schizothymic tendency of a dominance of the inner world over the outside world, partly including the body. So in the extreme and pathological spectrum of this side (the other is bipolar disorder as pathological extreme and zyklothymic behaviour as normal form) distorted views on the own physical form, the own body, are more common, with all its consequences, partly also including drug abuse and anorexia etc.

This is not limited to the Nordid spectrum, but is true for this psychological variants and the tendency, that a leptomorphs are more often schizothymic and pyknomorphs more often zyklothymic. Therefore in regions in which f.e. Nordid and Alpinid are the dominant elements, more Nordids will be leptomorphic than Alpinids, more Nordids will be schizothymic than Alpinids and more Nordids will be therefore in the psychological extreme positions, from leading scientists and officers being one side, bums and punks the other.

Schizothymes are not as much mediocre and average in their behaviour, but tend to "all or nothing" - of course, there are schizothymes which are gifted intellectually, while being socially not that successful - this might give them the ability to compensate, f.e. by being a successful scientists, very correct worker for the administration or something like that, but if falling into some form of abusive behaviour, alcohol, drugs etc. or being not gifted nor socially able, he might very soon end up as a bum or homeless punk.

This tendency is also stronger in males than in females, since females are less extreme if its about schizothymic tendencies usually and they keep, even if being "not as adapted and social active" as their zyklothymic counterparts, more often close ties to the social environment and are more inclined to simply adapt to the situation as it is in a very pragmatic way.

Which is also a reason why females are less often extremsits or real political idealists at all, they are more inclined to adapt to the social situation as it is and act on a personal level, rather than having abstract concepts as guideline.

Therefore a lack of young, schizothymic males means for a group also the inability to form any sort of a real revolutionary movement.

To sum it up, the caricature of the situation in some urban areas would be that of a disciplined Nordid manager, the Nordid eccentric in many fields, some proud and rough Nordid proletarians, a Nordid alcoholic bum and Alpinid opportunists between them.

Also compare:
http://forum.stirpes.net/psychology-...r-sheldon.html

http://forum.stirpes.net/psychology-...man-races.html

Race work by Dr. Ludwig F. Clauß

[Señor Malo]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

This is just humorous. Nordic phenotypes associated with schizophrenia and bums? You are an idiot.

Associating a character trait or a given psichological profile with an specific phenotype is freaky by itself.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Señor Malo

Associating a character trait or a given psichological profile with an specific phenotype is freaky by itself.

Such pseudo-scientific ideas flourish within the realms of physical anthropology.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Señor Malo

Associating a character trait or a given psichological profile with an specific phenotype is freaky by itself.

Oh, really?

Only if you dont know about the effects of f.e. certain hormones on both, the physical as well as the psychic structure.

A favourite example being hyperthyroidism and hypothyroidism. Compare:
Thyroid, Hyperthyroidism and Hypothyroidism

Additionally we have, beside very direct correlations of the physical and psychic traits, like we can observe them if looking at the body type/constitutional variation, indirect correlations due to co-selection.

F.e. in Europeans different psychological traits being selected over time, especially due to the climatic situation, weather change (Ice Age, seasons etc.) and new ways of life (higher hunter society, Neolithic revolution) than in f.e. parts of subsaharan Africa. In those cases there must be no correlation and its not causal, but there is one, because the frequency of specific psychological variants is more common here than there in the population.

Both, direct and indirect correlations, are the foundation of the psychological variations between types and populations, to think of such ideas being genuinly "unscientific" is just the result of the re-education in society and large parts of the scientific community after the 2nd World War in particular and there is no scientific reason for believing that such correlations are "freaky" or "impossible", even on the contrary, probability alone speaks for it.

Such pseudo-scientific ideas

So "pseudo-scientific" is only the bias of denying such correlations without proving it.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Only if you dont know about the effects of f.e. certain hormones on both, the physical as well as the psychic structure.

Obviously, that is not the focus of most such alleged links. Rather, the focus is on isolated hereditary traits, which are limited to specific effects on phenotype, which might not be accompanied by other traits in genotype that are otherwise claimed to be correlated with the phenotype.

Originally Posted by Agrippa

ns of the physical and psychic traits, like we can observe them if looking at the body type/constitutional variation, indirect correlations due to co-selection.

It's speculative to claim so, and it's only a possibility in specific cases where all the needed factors are meet. For an example, co-heredity between traits that are not visible in phenotype and traits that are, or external (hormonal, for instance) influence on traits that are otherwise statically defined by specific parts of the genotype related to their phenotype correlative.

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Both, direct and indirect correlations, are the foundation of the psychological variations between types and populations,

But the problem is that they are far from statically co-hereditary like you claim, there is no permanent link, as there is constant recombination and diffusion of different traits.

Originally Posted by Agrippa

to think of such ideas being genuinly "unscientific" is just the result of the re-education in society and large parts of the scientific community after the 2nd World War in particular

Such a reeducation does exist, but we are not subjects of it.

Originally Posted by Agrippa

and there is no scientific reason for believing that such correlations are "freaky" or "impossible"

Of course not, but there is as little reason to believe that such correlations are the rule, rather than the exception, considering genotypical miscegenation (leading to unpredictable recombination).

[Agrippa]

Its obvious that leptomorphs are as a rule in a different hormonal category than typical pyknomorphs.

Just combine effects of this well known glands:
thyroid gland - hyperthyroidism and hypothyroidism
pituitary gland - hyper- and hypoplastic, akromegaloid tendency
gonads - sex type

If you combine the normal variation of these three glands, you get very different physical and psychic variants, thats quite obvious.

Its also known from the animal world, if comparing f.e. cold blooded and hot blooded horses, a pug and a greyhound etc., that they dont just have a different body type, but also a different hormonal level, different psychic tendencies, different nervous structure.

Those are all, as complicated as they are, direct relations, no indirect ones.

Of course not, but there is as little reason to believe that such correlations are the rule, rather than the exception, considering genotypical miscegenation (leading to unpredictable recombination).

Population wise rather not, since even European nations can be distinguished genetically, regional populations can be also and larger worldwide unities can be differentiated even better.

There was no "free genflow" and there might be additional, not directly hormonal, body build, growth, nervous system related correlations of somatopsychic nature. We dont know of or cannot prove many aspects of these relations so far with absolut certainty, but will be able to do so, if there is a free scientific research in this field, in the near future.

The Serotonin and Dopamin levels and receptors are different in different populations too and neurotransmitter are an interesting factor for psychological characteristics obviously.
Furthermore many genes have more than one function and a relatively smaller number of control genes, which seem to be much more variable than the overall genetic variation, while being much more important for the phenotype (!), might influence many traits in an way which is the result of pure chance. F.e. because the control gene affects a longer part of the genome with various genes by chance. Selected was just the effect on gene 1, but the effect on gene 2, 3 and 4 was selected with and not detrimental etc.

A lot of open questions, but even with such a few ones being answered, the psycho-physical relation, directly and indirectly in the genpool of populations, is proven.

[Señor Malo]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

F.e. in Europeans different psychological traits being selected over time, especially due to the climatic situation, weather change (Ice Age, seasons etc.) and new ways of life (higher hunter society, Neolithic revolution) than in f.e. parts of subsaharan Africa. In those cases there must be no correlation and its not causal, but there is one, because the frequency of specific psychological variants is more common here than there in the population.

That looks more like a population and cultural effect then more than a phenotipical one

Originally Posted by Agrippa

to think of such ideas being genuinly "unscientific" is just the result of the re-education in society and large parts of the scientific community after the 2nd World War

And to think that such ideas are genuine and that a given phenotype sticks to a given psychology is on the contrary the result of an ethnocentrist oriented and biased education prior to World War II so we are at a dead point here.

[Max Rasna]

Never confuse genotype with phenotype.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Señor Malo

That looks more like a population and cultural effect then more than a phenotipical one

Well, we should be sure of the definitions and terms we use. From a biological standpoint, culture is at the same time an environmental influence working on the individual as well as the result of a biological populations cultural activities, which might or might not relate to their racial characteristics and surely relates to the environment in which a culture came up. The phenotype of individuals or groups is just the result of nature and nurture in combination. Since culture is nurture for the individual, an environmental influence, it is part of the forces working on the phenotype, f.e. due to the typical nutrition, working, how families being organised, which traditions being practised, which values and behavioural norms exist etc.

But to come back to what you meant, if looking at a population and its culture, we often cannot be sure what came first, a cultural norm or the genetically determined behaviour.

F.e. if talking about East Asians, the most striking example, the culture is strong, but the genetically determined characteristics seem to go in the same direction. Therefore what was first, the Chinese culture - which surely led to new forms of selection, since its clear that East Asian hunter gatherers had to deal with different selective pressures than a Chinese of the great settlements and the quite restrictive social norms. Or had the hunter-gatherer groups of the Mongolid race already the main characteristics which made them build SUCH a culture with this specific behavioural norms etc.

In most cases we cannot be sure and my personal opinion is that other factors than racial ones are in the progressive race belt at least more important, but still there is a racial influence one how populations deal with given problems and which cultures they produce.

And to think that such ideas are genuine and that a given phenotype sticks to a given psychology is on the contrary the result of an ethnocentrist oriented and biased education prior to World War II so we are at a dead point here.

Rather not, there were and still are many results pointing to such differences, while those claiming they dont exist, just argue with "that its racist or simply unlikely" that they are present, while doing little to prove the contrary.

[Señor Malo]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Well, we should be sure of the definitions and terms we use. From a biological standpoint, culture is at the same time an environmental influence working on the individual as well as the result of a biological populations cultural activities, which might or might not relate to their racial characteristics and surely relates to the environment in which a culture came up. The phenotype of individuals or groups is just the result of nature and nurture in combination. Since culture is nurture for the individual, an environmental influence, it is part of the forces working on the phenotype, f.e. due to the typical nutrition, working, how families being organised, which traditions being practised, which values and behavioural norms exist etc.

But to come back to what you meant, if looking at a population and its culture, we often cannot be sure what came first, a cultural norm or the genetically determined behaviour.

F.e. if talking about East Asians, the most striking example, the culture is strong, but the genetically determined characteristics seem to go in the same direction. Therefore what was first, the Chinese culture - which surely led to new forms of selection, since its clear that East Asian hunter gatherers had to deal with different selective pressures than a Chinese of the great settlements and the quite restrictive social norms. Or had the hunter-gatherer groups of the Mongolid race already the main characteristics which made them build SUCH a culture with this specific behavioural norms etc.

In most cases we cannot be sure and my personal opinion is that other factors than racial ones are in the progressive race belt at least more important, but still there is a racial influence one how populations deal with given problems and which cultures they produce.

Put like that it could make some sense. Hence Phenotype AND behaviour+ Psychology are BOTH effects of environmentally presures so if a given beahaviour sticks to a given phenotype is just a coincidence; because the effetcs of the same preassures have converged to both a given physical form and a given behaviour but not necessarely because a given physical forms affects the behaviour.

just to take an exemple, the english men were usually reputed for being "flegmatic" yet could you prove that an english Brüenn is less "flegmatic" than an english Keltic Nordic? Could you prove that among the englishmen who fit in the popular definition of "Flegmatic", those of keltic-nordic type do overwellmingly outnumber those who fit in the "Bruenn" type?


This reminds me that according to Coon in TROE it had been stablished that in the British Isles criminals usually had narrower faces than f.e. researchers ...

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Señor Malo

just to take an exemple, the english men were usually reputed for being "flegmatic" yet could you prove that an english Brüenn is less "flegmatic" than an english Keltic Nordic? Could you prove that among the englishmen who fit in the popular definition of "Flegmatic", those of keltic-nordic type do overwellmingly outnumber those who fit in the "Bruenn" type?


This reminds me that according to Coon in TROE it had been stablished that in the British Isles criminals usually had narrower faces than f.e. researchers ...

Well, if going after the constitutional variation, Cromagnid/Bruenn forms should be more mesomorphic build and more viscoese in temperament (slower reaction, less sensible to pain, not as creative, but more stable, with possible explosive erruptions, could be described as "slow schizothymic") than the Keltic Nordic phenotype which is characteristically leptomorphic and more schizothymic in a faster reacting, more sensitive way.

This is also apparent if looking at the musical style of typically mesomorphic/viscoese and more leptomorphic/schizothymic populations, f.e. comparing Amerindians with Europoid and Europoid-Negroid desert people. Now thats again a case in which we can't say what produced it for sure. Environment - cultural selection - culture - music or environment - biological selection - culture - music

To give and example for population wise differences of indirect nature vs. type differences of direct nature, one could take the North vs. South variation in Europe.

F.e. what Nordid, Dalofaelid, Northern Alpinoid and those Osteuropid variants which are close from Northern Europe have largely in common, should be mostly the result of genetic frequencies in the population, not related to a specific phenotype.

Whereas what distinguishes a leptomorphic Nordid type from a pyknomorphic Cromagnoid would be the result of the body itself, its hormonal and nervous structure, which largely equals with the constitutional type.

That would be something Nordid variants should have largely in common with similarly build Mediterranid variants from the south, while they share the population characteristics with their different build (pyknomorphic) neighbours.

Same is true for a pyknomorphic Alpinoid from lets say Spain, France, Southern Germany, Slovakia, Ukraine, Turkey, Syria etc., what he has in common should be directly linked to this racial form, what makes them different to the population and other genetically - or if being not sure - culturally determined characteristics.

But to make things more complicated, there could be, even if we can't prove it now, a direct connection of lets say blue eyes with effects on the whole phenotype including psychic characteristics, f.e. a stronger tendency towards introversion not just in the population but all individuals having the genes for a specific forms of eye coloration. That way it might or might not be causal (like constitutional-hormonal variation), but could also be just (by chance) genetically linked like described above (same loci, same regulator gene?).

Of course a lot of open questions and results which need to be produced in the future...

[Señor Malo]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Cromagnid/Bruenn forms should be more mesomorphic build and more viscoese in temperament (slower reaction...

...
characteristically leptomorphic and more schizothymic in a faster reacting, more sensitive way....

Though I'm not convinced about such relations, I must admit that I am very impressed and gives me food to think when I think of Roberto Begnini, for instance.... Am almost tempted to change my mind

But on the other side then I come back to my former opinion when I take my own exemple ; I'm of a very similar constition (if not identical) to that of Roberto Begnini, yet within my familiar cercle (within my family properly as well as among the circle ofmy father's first mariage sons) I'm reputed to be of a flegmatic temperament (exasperantly flegmatic for some members, they specially get pissed to the fact that they never can't know what I really feel or think) . To tell the truth I think I combine both : 50 % of times I might of an extremely flegmatic temperament ; 50% of others rather fast reactive and eager though I try to keep myself on the flegmatic side because I consider it fits best why my own personality.

Originally Posted by Agrippa

F.e. what Nordid, Dalofaelid, Northern Alpinoid and those Osteuropid variants which are close from Northern Europe have largely in common, should be mostly the result of genetic frequencies in the population, not related to a specific phenotype.

Here we are rowing in the same direction.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Whereas what distinguishes a leptomorphic Nordid type from a pyknomorphic Cromagnoid would be the result of the body itself, its hormonal and nervous structure, which largely equals with the constitutional type.

Many different genetic and nutritional factors contribute to phenotype differences within populations.

The main neurotransmittors and other constituents of the nervous system are not correlated with the processes related to pigmentoskeletal features.

Growth hormone and other skeletal related factors on the other hand are not related to personality traits, except when it comes to disorders, such personality traits can emerge mainly out of environmental interaction.

So the fact is, the personality traits developed out of inherited or taken on specifities, often emerge indirectly, out of the environmental and social responses to them, not as a causal correlation between the phenotype trait and a personality trait deriving out of biological heritage.

Further, I've seen very similar phenotypes with radically different personality types. Both because there is no one factor responsible for skeletal, pigmental and craniofacial features, but also because they can be accompanied by other different factors that lead to a unique personality type, whether those factors be derived out of biological heritage or environmental interactions that are culturally relative.

It's a matter of the ecological complexity, of the biological, environmental and cultural dynamics and properties of a society and its interactions with the individual.

In any case, what you're saying has some truth in it, but only because nothing is impossible. When it comes to phenotype, there are certain correlations with personality that can be true if other factors are met, but these correlations are in fact almost always indirect. The hormonal and nervous factors responsible for personality traits are mostly isolated from phenotype. The main exceptions are disorders.

To say the necessary factors for a correlation to exist are always met is pure speculation, and to assume that they are met even in one case, you would need much information to come up with such a conclusion (genetic analysis, analysis of the hormonal system, analysis of nutritional history, along with enviromental-cultural interactions). You are far away from providing a deterministic outlook of personality type of different phenotypes.

Originally Posted by Agrippa

But to make things more complicated, there could be, even if we can't prove it now, a direct connection of lets say blue eyes with effects on the whole phenotype including psychic characteristics, f.e. a stronger tendency towards introversion not just in the population but all individuals having the genes for a specific forms of eye coloration. That way it might or might not be causal (like constitutional-hormonal variation), but could also be just (by chance) genetically linked like described above (same loci, same regulator gene?).

No strong or clear correlation is likely to be found in this department, especially if we consider the enormous recombination between different traits, leading to various mixtures of different eye colours, that are in between brown and black, brown and blue, blue and green, and other human arbitrations of different pigmentation levels. You could only find weak correlations that have less meaning than environmental sociological tools could give.

Even the most important genetically defined hormonal factor when it comes to human pigmentation, that is, melanocyte-regulation through the melanocyte-stimulating melanocortins, different levels of pigmentation, have only weak levels of correlation with personality traits, that can be explained by environmental interactions. Only in extreme types of different melanocyte systems, can we find real correlations. The same is probably true for so many other hormonal factors, and we come near the realm of hormonal and nervous disorders, exceptions, not rules, when we enter that discussion.

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Of course a lot of open questions and results which need to be produced in the future...

Mostly, what insight you give is very speculative and inconclusive. It doesn't justify errorneously speaking of outright absolute correlations between phenotype and personality traits.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Señor Malo

Though I'm not convinced about such relations, I must admit that I am very impressed and gives me food to think when I think of Roberto Begnini, for instance.... Am almost tempted to change my mind

Originally Posted by Señor Malo

But on the other side then I come back to my former opinion when I take my own exemple ; I'm of a very similar constition (if not identical) to that of Roberto Begnini, yet within my familiar cercle (within my family properly as well as among the circle ofmy father's first mariage sons) I'm reputed to be of a flegmatic temperament (exasperantly flegmatic for some members, they specially get pissed to the fact that they never can't know what I really feel or think) . To tell the truth I think I combine both : 50 % of times I might of an extremely flegmatic temperament ; 50% of others rather fast reactive and eager though I try to keep myself on the flegmatic side because I consider it fits best why my own personality.

Faster reaction in physical and structural tests. A typical schizothymic-zyklothymic differences being form vs. color preference and slower learning-faster application of learned vs. faster learning-slower application of learned.

Inside of the schizothymic spectrum you have higher and lower energetic levels, unsensitive vs. sensitive, vs. in the zyklothymic spectrum you can find hypomanic and subdepressive, more emotionally colored variants.

The slower paced schizothymic variant of the viscoese is most common among heavy-robust and mesomorphic (not typically Pyknic) individuals.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

Many different genetic and nutritional factors contribute to phenotype differences within populations.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

The main neurotransmittors and other constituents of the nervous system are not correlated with the processes related to pigmentoskeletal features.

Well, they can be related to the metabolism as a whole and of course the soft tissue.

Growth hormone and other skeletal related factors on the other hand are not related to personality traits, except when it comes to disorders, such personality traits can emerge mainly out of environmental interaction.

So the fact is, the personality traits developed out of inherited or taken on specifities, often emerge indirectly, out of the environmental and social responses to them, not as a causal correlation between the phenotype trait and a personality trait deriving out of biological heritage.

Well, that can't be said for all traits but only for every trait on its own right and in some cases we can assume a combined effect.

Further, I've seen very similar phenotypes with radically different personality types. Both because there is no one factor responsible for skeletal, pigmental and craniofacial features, but also because they can be accompanied by other different factors that lead to a unique personality type, whether those factors be derived out of biological heritage or environmental interactions that are culturally relative.

The inheritance of psychic traits is in most cases just a predisposition, which means the actual expression might be individualised due to different environmental pressures, yet the "starting point" and core traits being genetically determined. So while f.e. even some twins might seem to be very different personalities, they are often are just in very specific fields different, whereas the core traits are exactly the same.

In any case, what you're saying has some truth in it, but only because nothing is impossible. When it comes to phenotype, there are certain correlations with personality that can be true if other factors are met, but these correlations are in fact almost always indirect. The hormonal and nervous factors responsible for personality traits are mostly isolated from phenotype. The main exceptions are disorders.

Oftentimes disorders point to the way the normal variation "works".

To say the necessary factors for a correlation to exist are always met is pure speculation, and to assume that they are met even in one case, you would need much information to come up with such a conclusion (genetic analysis, analysis of the hormonal system, analysis of nutritional history, along with enviromental-cultural interactions). You are far away from providing a deterministic outlook of personality type of different phenotypes.

Well, its clear if dealing with f.e. these two extremes:

(From Conrad)
You deal with wholly different predispositions which influence the psychic traits as well. One common example is that zyklothymic individuals in all societies are more likely to smile on photographs, the face morph makes that also clear as an average result.

No strong or clear correlation is likely to be found in this department, especially if we consider the enormous recombination between different traits, leading to various mixtures of different eye colours, that are in between brown and black, brown and blue, blue and green, and other human arbitrations of different pigmentation levels. You could only find weak correlations that have less meaning than environmental sociological tools could give.

To be honest, I dont believe in such a correlation, but I often argued with someone about it and I can't disprove him completely so far with high certainty, because we simply are not as far yet.

Even the most important genetically defined hormonal factor when it comes to human pigmentation, that is, melanocyte-regulation through the melanocyte-stimulating melanocortins, different levels of pigmentation, have only weak levels of correlation with personality traits, that can be explained by environmental interactions. Only in extreme types of different melanocyte systems, can we find real correlations. The same is probably true for so many other hormonal factors, and we come near the realm of hormonal and nervous disorders, exceptions, not rules, when we enter that discussion.

You can even explain aggressive behaviour by environmental factors with ease, yet there are genetic variants more inclined to act aggressively in an uncontrolled way and thats proven. So even if you prove the possibility of either genetic or environmental influences for one trait or one individual, it doesnt mean you can exclude the other factor for it and for sure not for every other individual until you have a more complete overlook about the genetic and environmental factors involved in different scenarios.

Mostly, what insight you give is very speculative and inconclusive. It doesn't justify errorneously speaking of outright absolute correlations between phenotype and personality traits.

I've argued in detail in other threads and as you can imagine I'm tired of repeating everything, so probably, if going more into detail, it would be preferable to start in the respective threads about constitutional and somatopsychical relations.