has there been any study (I doubt it, but it doesn't hurt to ask) comparing the autosomal distance

[Voyt]

between blonde-blue-eyed people of Russia to, say, blonde-blue-eyed people of Northern Ireland or Scotland, or any other western European nation

The reason I ask is because I've been wondering if, when separated from the entire general population, blonde-blue-eyed people would be closer to each other than if you only compared the general populations of two countries, as separate wholes, from eastern and western Europe. Of course, the intermixing has been happening for millennia now, but I still think it would be a revealing study.

[Trouble]

There has been no such study and none is needed. I can guarantee you that those blonde blue eyed people are exactly the same autosomally as their non-blonde non-blue eyed counterparts in the same nation.

[Nurzat]

There has been no such study and none is needed. I can guarantee you that those blonde blue eyed people are exactly the same autosomally as their non-blonde non-blue eyed counterparts in the same nation.

in the group of friends that tested together back in 2011, the fair skinned/blue-eyed guy is by far the southernmost genetically (clusters with Bulgarians) so at least in our group there was no correlation between pigmentation and overall autosomal DNA clustering.

Voight, don't mind, but OP question is naive

[Voyt]

There has been no such study and none is needed. I can guarantee you that those blonde blue eyed people are exactly the same autosomally as their non-blonde non-blue eyed counterparts in the same nation.

I do agree that they would still be closer to the general population than to blonde-blue-eyeds from other countries, but I still think that they would share a noticeable component of an original population that came about with the intermixing of WHG and EHG (blue eye contributors and blonde hair contributors, respectively).

I generally see a pattern in the skull structure of blonde-blue-eyeds from any caucasian country, and not just in the facial structure but the behavior as well, that differentiates them from a more brown-haired-brown-eyed European general population. This pattern manifests itself as a noticeable broad forehead, jaw and brow, generally upturned nose with small nostrils, a more pinkish tone to the skin (as opposed to pallid or anemic tone). With behavior, the blondes are noticeable more withdrawn from the rest of the populace (which leads to the perception among the rest of the population of being stuck-up), but also more altruistic.

Example:


Russia:

http://fclevadia.ee/public/images/articles/FCL2013/482fe2b67012ebb80d7da622d1e0632b.jpg

Ireland:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/08/85/9b/08859b095eebdedc6f55f74609324684.jpg

Sweden:

https://i.imgur.com/ez0E3PA.png

America:

https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article10126944.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/MTV-EMAs-2013-Eminem-Dressing-Room-Exclusive.jpg


" Friends and family remember Eminem as a happy child, but "a bit of a loner" "

If you ask me, there is a clear pattern


in the group of friends that tested together back in 2011, the fair skinned/blue-eyed guy is by far the southernmost genetically (clusters with Bulgarians) so at least in our group there was no correlation between pigmentation and overall autosomal DNA clustering.

Voight, don't mind, but OP question is naive


I don't deny the possibility of outliers (as of course, even in my family, a south-Slavic one, one of my mothers sisters was a archetypal blonde woman (upturned piggy nose, pinkish skin, withdrawn from the rest))

I just don't think you should be so dismissive of a potential pattern that could reveal itself as indicative of a root population millennia ago.

[Nurzat]

^ I don't agree - usually Balkan blonds have Balkan head shape and skull/facial proportions (brachy), Mediterranean blonds have Med skull/facial proportions, while most East Slavic blonds are usually easy to differentiate from Germanic (Noric types mostly) and Scando (heavy "CroMagnon") blonds as well.

so to speak, it's easier to see blond Balkanites or Meds than Balkanites or Meds that have the skull shape and facial features of naturally Northern peoples disregard of pigmentation

[Leto]

If the blondes and brunettes are from the same country and region, I don't see the reason why they should be genetically different beyond natural individual variations.

[Dorian]

You are a special breed brother , who cares what studies say?you expect these sjws cliques to let the truth out? ./

[Voyt]

^ I don't agree - usually Balkan blonds have Balkan head shape and skull/facial proportions (brachy), Mediterranean blonds have Med skull/facial proportions, while most East Slavic blonds are usually easy to differentiate from Germanic (Noric types mostly) and Scando (heavy "CroMagnon") blonds as well.

so to speak, it's easier to see blond Balkanites or Meds than Balkanites or Meds that have the skull shape and facial features of naturally Northern peoples


I do agree that in general the blonde-blue-eyeds of each particular country or region have more of a skull structure of that region.
BUT, that doesn't mean that there isn't a genetic SKEW towards the expression of certain archetypal genes.
This is my aunt for example:

https://i.imgur.com/IijHYZi.png

Her skull structure and skin tone is a lot more Germanic than that of the rest of my family, which is more archetypally Dinaric or even Mtebid. My uncle is a lot more Mtebid, with more slanted eyes (Caucasus, dunno why they use that weird african sounding name), while my mom is a lot more Armenid, with that classic dark Armenid eye socket shape.


If the blondes and brunettes are from the same country and region, I don't see the reason why they should be genetically different beyond natural individual variations.

Gene expressions that cluster in archetypal groups, rather than as pure randomness, for one. For some reason, even after multiple millennia, we have siblings from one family (in all European countries) that are almost entirely different from one another, in both looks and behavior. They all share similar genes, yes, but the expression of those genes is entirely different.

[Voyt]

You are a special breed brother , who cares what studies say?you expect these sjws cliques to let the truth out? ./

That's the thing, I"m seeking the truth. And I believe that there is an intrinsic link between science, i.e. genetics, and spirituality, i.e. reincarnation.
Our goal should be to find that link, but of course studies like the one I'm looking for will likely not happen in the forseeable future, which is saddening.

[TheOldNorth]

There has been no such study and none is needed. I can guarantee you that those blonde blue eyed people are exactly the same autosomally as their non-blonde non-blue eyed counterparts in the same nation.

yeah, only a couple genes change both of those features, which both groups inherit from their common indo-european ancestors thousands of years ago, so no they're closer to their kinsmen then to each other

[TheOldNorth]

I do agree that in general the blonde-blue-eyeds of each particular country or region have more of a skull structure of that region.
BUT, that doesn't mean that there isn't a genetic SKEW towards the expression of certain archetypal genes.
This is my aunt for example:

https://i.imgur.com/IijHYZi.png

Her skull structure and skin tone is a lot more Germanic than that of the rest of my family, which is more archetypally Dinaric or even Mtebid. My uncle is a lot more Mtebid, with more slanted eyes (Caucasus, dunno why they use that weird african sounding name), while my mom is a lot more Armenid, with that classic dark Armenid eye socket shape.



Gene expressions that cluster in archetypal groups, rather than as pure randomness, for one. For some reason, even after multiple millennia, we have siblings from one family (in all European countries) that are almost entirely different from one another, in both looks and behavior. They all share similar genes, yes, but the expression of those genes is entirely different.

that's because balkan blondes are blonde because of slavs, Irish and scottish blondes are not part slavic

[Voyt]

yeah, only a couple genes change both of those features, which both groups inherit from there common indo-european ancestors thousands of years ago, so no they're closer to their kinsmen then to eachother

For eye color there have been found a dozen or so genes that affect it.
But let's assume you're right, that there is no link: why then do people born with both blonde hair and blue eyes usually have a propensity to be linked to other north-Germanic traits such as pinkish skin tone, lesser-nose-bridge, broad jaw, etc. Surely if a southern European family has three children, and one of them turns out to be some posterchild Hitler youth, then that points to some larger archetypal reality ?

To me, the chance that a dozen genes for eye color, for nose shape, jaw shape, head shape, and mental temperament, all coincide and express in one person out of three siblings, a pattern that happens frequently enough in every country such that it comes across as supernatural, that to me points to genetics mirroring an overarching spiritual world.


that's because balkan blondes are blonde because of slavs, Irish and scottish blondes are not part slavic

Millennia before Slavs, Germanics, and even the Indo-European languages, right around 6000 B.C., WHG and EHG intermixed in the area around eastern europe and Scandinavia:

http://armchairprehistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/A7000-BC-gene-map-s.gif

and yet, almost 10,000 years after that, we're still getting people being born that mirror the exact outcome of the intermixing of those two prototypal groups, multiple times in families that look nothing like those groups. It'd be eerie and supernatural to anyone that considers it for a few minutes, and yet it's the truth.

This guy even claims that the split into Germanic/Balto-Slavic occurred only after the Bronze Age:

https://i.imgur.com/E9TRZHi.png

[Dorian]

For eye color there have been found a dozen or so genes that affect it.
But let's assume you're right, that there is no link: why then do people born with both blonde hair and blue eyes usually have a propensity to be linked to other north-Germanic traits such as pinkish skin tone, lesser-nose-bridge, broad jaw, etc. Surely if a southern European family has three children, and one of them turns out to be some posterchild Hitler youth, then that points to some larger archetypal reality ?



Millennia before Slavs, Germanics, and even the Indo-European languages, right around 6000 B.C., WHG and EHG intermixed in the area around eastern europe and Scandinavia:

http://armchairprehistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/A7000-BC-gene-map-s.gif

These groups contributed to all known phenotypes though, all of them are some kind of hybrid(metrically) with the various mutations/adaptations+ selection strategies in populations differentiating them ,the phenotype you described doesn't represent any true archetype ,so how do we define the archetype first?
What you want to find is how&which genes shape the phenotype and If they are pleiotropic , since your end goal is spirituality ,the only tool available for now is face reading, correlation between traits,personality etc

[JamesBond007]

between blonde-blue-eyed people of Russia to, say, blonde-blue-eyed people of Northern Ireland or Scotland, or any other western European nation

The reason I ask is because I've been wondering if, when separated from the entire general population, blonde-blue-eyed people would be closer to each other than if you only compared the general populations of two countries, as separate wholes, from eastern and western Europe. Of course, the intermixing has been happening for millennia now, but I still think it would be a revealing study.

Being blonde haired and blue eyed gives one super magical powers that is why it is so important that such a study was done already ! :bored::picard2:

https://media.mnn.com/assets/images/2016/07/snowflake-albino-gorilla1.jpg.638x0_q80_crop-smart.jpg

[Voyt]

These groups contributed to all known phenotypes though, all of them are some kind of hybrid(metrically) with the various mutations/adaptations+ selection strategies in populations differentiating them ,the phenotype you described doesn't represent any true archetype ,so how do we define the archetype first?


Yes, so that's precisely why we can have, for instance in a Greek family, one sibling that looks almost entirely Anatolian, one sibling that looks almost entirely CHG, and a third that looks almost entirely WHG+EHG. The pattern is precisely that we can have an intermixing of features, but still historical archetypes are formed.

Did I not define the WHG+EHG archetype? My aunt for example is much more empathetic compared to her siblings, but also too trusting. This is the classic northern European pathological altruism that has led to them being easily swayed by passionate leaders, like Charlemagne (who influenced one group of Germanics to massacre others), Stalin (CHG) or Hitler (more Anatolian Neolithic), or Winston Churchill (who again, like Charlemagne, influenced his people to fight against those closest to them genetically). I'm sure there are multiple other examples throughout history but my memory fails me. All of these north European traits would be a result of a survival strategy that worked best in the cold northern winters and as a purely in-group phenomenon, and utterly collapses when combined with the strategies of other populations like Anatolian Neolithic or CHG.


What you want to find is how&which genes shape the phenotype and If they are pleiotropic , since your end goal is spirituality ,the only tool available for now is face reading, correlation between traits,personality etc



Nice word, pleiotropic. I'm also interested in epigenetics and would be interested in some studies with population genetics in that field, but yeah that's probably still a taboo topic for modern science.

[TheOldNorth]

For eye color there have been found a dozen or so genes that affect it.
But let's assume you're right, that there is no link: why then do people born with both blonde hair and blue eyes usually have a propensity to be linked to other north-Germanic traits such as pinkish skin tone, lesser-nose-bridge, broad jaw, etc. Surely if a southern European family has three children, and one of them turns out to be some posterchild Hitler youth, then that points to some larger archetypal reality ?

To me, the chance that a dozen genes for eye color, for nose shape, jaw shape, head shape, and mental temperament, all coincide and express in one person out of three siblings, a pattern that happens frequently enough in every country such that it comes across as supernatural, that to me points to genetics mirroring an overarching spiritual world.



Millennia before Slavs, Germanics, and even the Indo-European languages, right around 6000 B.C., WHG and EHG intermixed in the area around eastern europe and Scandinavia:

http://armchairprehistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/A7000-BC-gene-map-s.gif

and yet, almost 10,000 years after that, we're still getting people being born that mirror the exact outcome of the intermixing of those two prototypal groups, multiple times in families that look nothing like those groups. It'd be eerie and supernatural to anyone that considers it for a few minutes, and yet it's the truth.

most balkan peoples are not blonde haired blue-eyed though, so if you where right there'd be just as many blonde greeks as germans

[Dorian]

Yes, so that's precisely why we can have, for instance in a Greek family, one sibling that looks almost entirely Anatolian, one sibling that looks almost entirely CHG, and a third that looks almost entirely WHG+EHG. The pattern is precisely that we can have an intermixing of features, but still historical archetypes are formed.

Did I not define the WHG+EHG archetype? My aunt for example is much more empathetic compared to her siblings, but also too trusting. This is the classic northern European pathological altruism that has led to them being easily swayed by passionate leaders, like Charlemagne (who influenced one group of Germanics to massacre others), Stalin (CHG) or Hitler (more Anatolian Neolithic), or Winston Churchill (who again, like Charlemagne, influenced his people to fight against those closest to them genetically). I'm sure there are multiple other examples throughout history but my memory fails me. All of these north European traits would be a result of a survival strategy that worked best in the cold northern winters and as a purely in-group phenomenon, and utterly collapses when combined with the strategies of other populations like Anatolian Neolithic or CHG.

Nice word, pleiotropic. I'm also interested in epigenetics and would be interested in some studies with population genetics in that field, but yeah that's probably still a taboo topic for modern science.

I get what you mean ,we are just far from mapping everything about genes&brain to get such answers yet,maybe AI will do it?