05-25-2010, 06:56 PM
Everyone is so different. Whats yoru scheme? Discuss.
05-25-2010, 07:40 PM
It is best to make a list of their traits in your mind, starting from the more general distinguishing traits to the very specific ones. Then you would consider whether those traits fit in with one group or another. Think of it like a dichotomous key found in the common Kingdom, Phylum, Class, etc taxonomy system. You would ask questions to yourself about their Facial Index, Nasal Index, Cephalic Index, Body Type, Height, Robustness, Pigmentation, etc.
So lets say an individual is an Atlanto-Mediterranid.
Well first, I would like to distinguish whether they are an Aurignacoid or Cromagnid type. Well to do that I would look at things like Facial Index, specific skull features such as orbital shape and size, body type, robustness, etc. After that I would come to the conclusion that the Atlanto-Mediterranid individual is better suited under the Aurignacoid spectrum, for starters, because he would be Leptomorphic/Leptoprosopic as well as those other distinguishing traits I have or haven't listed.
Then I would ask myself about the Cephalic Index. Is he Brachycephalic or Dolichocephalic? If Brachy I would have considered it as a more Taurid/Dinarid trait. If Dolicho I would have considered it more of a Nordo-Mediterranid trait. Since he would eventually be classified as an Atlanto-Med, then the latter is suitable.
Then I would consider things like relative robustness, height, pigmentation, to distinguish where in the Dolicho-leptomorphic spectrum he would fit. But I still must consider the previously mentioned traits, as there are always minute differences in them between specific types. Now I would know that my Atlanto-Med is more robust, long headed, slightly less pigmented and less infantile when compared to my Gracile-Med, but less robust, more pigmented, etc when compared to a Nordo-Mediterranid intermediate like an Atlantid and especially North-Atlantids, so I would consider him a Large Mediterranid. Mostly because of the size and robustness when compared to Small Mediterranids, but furthermore because of the other traits like pigmentation that I've mentioned.
Eventually I specialize further until the only option is either Atlanto-Med, or I would have to consider that the individual is an intermediate, either by process or mixture. Which is a possibility at any point. I must always consider the distinguishing factors of one type over another, even if they aren't a commonly distinguishing factor between all types(i.e The notable Jaw of a Faelid.)
Also one other important thing is the person's ancestry. It helps quite a bit, as it opens up the possibilities of what could be present. This is important even if it does feel like cheating.
It also helps if you think of these typological definitions, as spectrums rather than specific entirely distinctive types from others; however there is an ideal goal of traits to fit within the core of this spectrum, and all non-core types could end up having an affinity towards another spectrum while still staying within the main spectrum as a whole. If that makes sense.
Anyway that is all of the things I think of when I try to classify somebody.
edit: You must also consider why these things happen environmentally as well. Why this specific specialization occurred. This is the most interesting part of classifying people in my opinion.
05-25-2010, 07:44 PM
Paler and lighter of hair and eye than my self = Aryan-God-Person.
Darker of skin, hair and eye than my self = Heretic-mud-blood-infidel.
It all depends on which typological system you want to use as reference. I prefer the European systems based on Deniker's classification scheme. These take into account the specificities of local living populations (sort of "average type" but that was not always the case), however each has slightly different definitions and names of the European types.
Generally, there is a massive overlap between the types of different authors, like between Alpine/Baltid/Borreby/Subnordid/Osteuropid/Lapponoid/Ladogan/Neodanubian/Piastowski/Vistulan etc. No single definition of any type has ever been universally accepted. For instance, in spite of some general agreement on pigmentation, there has never been a consensus on what precisely the Nordic characteristics are. I try not to mix the systems as it makes little sense and you get one big confusing mess in the end.
Read outdated science books.
Look at people's pictures.
Post at Apricity.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.