Eye and hair colour distribution among 488 Irish (both sexes studied)

[Septentrion]

You lack the ability to concentrate, it seems. Martin himself participated in the creation of scale I use, together with Schultz. I consider our talk (cannot really call it a discussion as you lowered its quality) over. You also lack critical thinking. Goodbye!

You lack the ability to get facts straight! I found your flaw, that’s all. You were trying to say that when Harvard’s scientists found out that less than 0.5% of the nearly 10,000 is not “true”. Of course it is! It really depended on the scale used. Critical thinking? Ha!ha!ha! You are the one who don’t want to believe their professional work, but are trying to base on your Amateur one! Think next time. Bye!

[The Blade]

You lack the ability to get facts straight! I found your flaw, that’s all. You were trying to say that when Harvard’s scientists found out that less than 0.5% of the nearly 10,000 is not “true”. Of course it is! It really depended on the scale used. Critical thinking? Ha!ha!ha! You are the one who don’t want to believe their professional work, but are trying to base on your Amateur one! Think next time. Bye!

No, I do not consider myself the master of anthropology or whatever, but ''pure brown'' means various things to different people. Did you even bother to see the links I posted and count brown eyes honestly according to the Martin-Schultz or even to the original Martin scale in which Schultz didn't participate? Of course, you didn't. I'm sorry but when I told you people (including professionals, not just forum members like me) have different (sometimes extremely variable) criterion of what's ''light'', ''dark'', ''pure brown'', ''pure blue'', etc. I was indeed right. Beddoe, for instance, gave Wales 5!% blue eyes only. Do you find that plausible? I don't. Besides, I didn't question the ability or sample size of Harvard authors but said their criterion of ''pure brown'' probably differs from what is usually treated as brown eyes. If Ireland had 0,5% of brown eyes how much would Sweden and Finland have? 0,1%? With all my respect and as light as they are, that's unrealistic and I have seen even Scandinavians admitting it.

[Septentrion]

Keltic-Nordic was Coon's term in TROE 1939 that was a mix of Mediterranean, Nordic, and Dinaric.

North-Atlantid is a term from Lundman that was taken from Deniker's North-Western, which itself was a altered Atlanto-Mediterranean. Lundman interpreted the North-Atlantid as being a mix of Nordic and Gracile-Mediterranean. It has nothing to do with Keltic-Nordics.



Atlantid is a term from von Eickstedt's 1935 publication Die Mediterranen in Wales where it was described as a Mediterranean British Isles type.

My thread below contains good information on the Northwestern, Keltic, and Nordic-Mediterranean types. Note Keltic is a Hooton term and not the same thing as Keltic-Nordic.

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...d-Keltic-types

Don’t change my words. I did not refer to Coon specifically. All I said was the the North-Atlantid is primarily Nordid! Lndman recognizes that fact and I guess Cole calls it “Keltic” in 1965. About Carleton Stevens Coon, I know that he acknowledged that both the Goidels of Ireland and the Kymric A and B invaders of England belonged to the Keltic Iron Age branch of the Nordic race!

[Septentrion]

No, I do not consider myself the master of anthropology or whatever, but ''pure brown'' means various things to different people. Did you even bother to see the links I posted and count brown eyes honestly according to the Martin-Schultz or even to the original Martin scale in which Schultz didn't participate? Of course, you didn't. I'm sorry but when I told you people (including professionals, not just forum members like me) have different (sometimes extremely variable) criterion of what's ''light'', ''dark'', ''pure brown'', ''pure blue'', etc. I was indeed right. Beddoe, for instance, gave Wales 5!% blue eyes only. Do you find that plausible? I don't. Besides, I didn't question the ability or sample size of Harvard authors but said their criterion of ''pure brown'' probably differs from what is usually treated as brown eyes. If Ireland had 0,5% of brown eyes how much would Sweden and Finland have? 0,1%? With all my respect and as light as they are, that's unrealistic and I have seen even Scandinavians admitting it.

It is 0.5% pure brown! It has already been pointed by the various anthropologists that the Irish have mainly straight blue or mixed eyes and not pure brown. Out of 10,000 men surveyed, only 43 had pure brown eyes.
This why Carleton Coon would allow himself to say, I quote “ In the proportion of pure light eyes, Ireland competes successfully with the blondest regions of Scandinavia” and again somewhere else I quote, “ There is probably no population of equal size which is lighter and blue-eyed than the Irish”.

[Septentrion]

You are not only an amateur but also unnecessarily stubborn and unsynchronized in studies you post.
First learn what you are talking about and then carefully read what others are saying.
You are posting the Martin scale:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_scale
I was pretty clear both in my responses to you and in my original post that I use the later Martin-Schultz scale Rudolf Martin created in cooperation with Dr. Bruno Kurt Schultz:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin...3Schultz_scale
I said:
''To estimate the eye colours distribution I used the Martin-Schultz scale. Green eyes with brown spots when green dominates I count as light. Evenly mixed green-brown shades and such where brown dominates I consider hazel and don't count as light."
''I already clarified my scale in the OP - the Martin-Schultz scale:"
Not only this but the Martin-Schultz scale they cooperated in the creation of is still used nowadays and is considered a superior effort to the original one invented by Martin alone:
"The Martin scale is an older version of color scale commonly used in physical anthropology to establish more or less precisely the eye color of an individual; it was created by the anthropologist Martin in the first half of the 20th century. Later he improved this scale with cooperation of Dr. Schultz – the Martin-Schultz scale.
The original Martin scale, summarized below, consists of 16 colors (from light blue to dark brown-black) that correspond to the different eye colors observed in nature due to the amount of melanin in the iris. The numbering is reversed in order to match the Martin–Schultz scale, which is still used in biological anthropology."
So learn something and get your facts straight. 0,5% of brown eyes is ridiculous for any state in Europe - you really need to understand authors have different (sometimes dramatically different) perceptions of what is ''dark''. I'm sure that if nowadays professionals conduct a study of the Irish (with clear criteria) the results will make you forget about these 0,5% of brown eyes.

Remember “Master of Anthropology”, the most outstanding anthropological feature found among the Irish by Harvard’s anthropologists was not red hair ( as many might suppose) rather the distribution of the light eye colour! Out of 10,000 only 43 had pure brown eyes and out of 10,000 only 33 combined jet black hair and “snapping” dark eyes. Pure blue eyes would go about half or nearly so.

[Supercomputer]

Remember “Master of Anthropology”, the most outstanding anthropological feature found among the Irish by Harvard’s anthropologists was not red hair ( as many might suppose) rather the distribution of the light eye colour! Out of 10,000 only 43 had pure brown eyes and out of 10,000 only 33 combined jet black hair and “snapping” dark eyes. Pure blue eyes would go about half or nearly so.

Dude we already settled this. The "trick" is 0.5 figure is for eyes that are literally pure brown, meaning with no green edges around in the outer part f the iris. This study observed eyes in greater detail than other studies. Around 6% of eyes are "very pronounced dark" meaning for all intents and purposes brown - something like the eyes of Colin Farrell which you correctly discovered has a little green on the edges, but most people (and most studies) would consider these eyes as brown. If the studies on Scandinavia broke down categories in such a detailed way the pure brown category it would likely also be just as low.

[Supercomputer]

double post

[JamesBond007]

Also I'm slightly surprised Irish aren't lighter eyed than English. It's possible there would be a difference in pure brown eyes if the study way done on very HQ images.

The Irish probably are lighter eyed than the English. Probably 10% of the English have brown eyes and maybe even more. However, ethnicity is more about genetics and anthropometric features. Northern Europeans in Germanic countries can have brown hair and eyes but they have a "look" - high cheek bones, a long face, a narrow nose, and very defined, angular features. Someone in Northern Germany or England can have brown hair and eyes and look identical anthropometrically to someone with brown hair and eyes; the Irish , on the otherhand, have another "look" unlike other northern Europeans just like gyspsies and Jews.

Compare the Irish Brendan Gleeson with the English coldplay lead singer Chris Martin :





I have dark hair and eyes but my facial features are very much more like Chris Martin but no two people are exactly identical. The Irishman has almost negro like facial features. In fact the Irish used to be compared to negroes by both the British and the Americans.

It's only on these anthrotard forums that people obsess about being perfectly nordic in every way e.g. the whole shebang inlcuding blonde hair and blue eyes.



I am only being nasty and politically incorrect here because the Irish are responsible for spreading a lot of anti-English sentiment and being quite successful in making people hate the English.

[Supercomputer]

The Irish probably are lighter eyed than the English. Probably 10% of the English have brown eyes and maybe even more. However, ethnicity is more about genetics and anthropometric features. Northern Europeans in Germanic countries can have brown hair and eyes but they have a "look" - high cheek bones, a long face, a narrow nose, and very defined, angular features. Someone in Northern Germany or England can have brown hair and eyes and look identical anthropometrically to someone with brown hair and eyes; the Irish , on the otherhand, have another "look" unlike other northern Europeans just like gyspsies and Jews.

Compare the Irish Brendan Gleeson with the English coldplay lead singer Chris Martin :





I have dark hair and eyes but my facial features are very much more like Chris Martin but no two people are exactly identical. The Irishman has almost negro like facial features. In fact the Irish used to be compared to negroes by both the British and the Americans.

It's only on these anthrotard forums that people obsess about being perfectly nordic in every way e.g. the whole shebang inlcuding blonde hair and blue eyes.



I am only being nasty and politically incorrect here because the Irish are responsible for spreading a lot of anti-English sentiment and being quite successful in making people hate the English.

There are people who look like Brendan Gleeson in every country including England or Scandinavia.

[Supercomputer]

The Irish probably are lighter eyed than the English. Probably 10% of the English have brown eyes and maybe even more. However, ethnicity is more about genetics and anthropometric features. Northern Europeans in Germanic countries can have brown hair and eyes but they have a "look" - high cheek bones, a long face, a narrow nose, and very defined, angular features. Someone in Northern Germany or England can have brown hair and eyes and look identical anthropometrically to someone with brown hair and eyes; the Irish , on the otherhand, have another "look" unlike other northern Europeans just like gyspsies and Jews.

Compare the Irish Brendan Gleeson with the English coldplay lead singer Chris Martin :





I have dark hair and eyes but my facial features are very much more like Chris Martin but no two people are exactly identical. The Irishman has almost negro like facial features. In fact the Irish used to be compared to negroes by both the British and the Americans.

It's only on these anthrotard forums that people obsess about being perfectly nordic in every way e.g. the whole shebang inlcuding blonde hair and blue eyes.



I am only being nasty and politically incorrect here because the Irish are responsible for spreading a lot of anti-English sentiment and being quite successful in making people hate the English.

There are people who look like Brendan Gleeson in every country including England or Scandinavia.