Eye and hair colour distribution among 1144 Portuguese (both sexes studied)

[sofiagris]

It's unbelievable reading you saying that, after this thread:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...backed)/page59




Given what i've seen you doing with the Hoyos Sainz study, The Blade's study is as valid as whatever it is you're doing.

You are very stubborn with Hoyos Sainz and his definition of Garzo that is not that of the real academy of the Spanish language. LEARN AT ONCE THAT THE DEFINITION OF GARZO IS BLUISH, the definition given by your admired Hoyos is his personal appreciation and not the official definition dictionary that is BLUISH record it. This includes shades of blue mixed with gray and green. I repeat that your Ibero-American perception of light eyes is not that of Europe and green-brown eyes here are not considered light.Hoyos Sainz's study is only correct if it is done for the entire national territory, it is not useful for provinces, since in 1978 the regional and provincial configuration in Spain varied

[Supercomputer]

It's unbelievable reading you saying that, after this thread:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...backed)/page59




Given what i've seen you doing with the Hoyos Sainz study, The Blade's study is as valid as whatever it is you're doing.

Nope, I've interpreted Hoyos Sainz totally correctly. It fits perfectly with Sanchez Fernandez study as well as with TNH. The Blade is dishonest liar who loosens and strictens standards arbitrarily. If you think for a moment that Portugal has anything close to 50% light eyes than you're an idiot as well. I don't know if it was you or some other Portuguese member here who conducted a study on Portuguese parliament and found 13% light eyes. How you get from 13% to 50% even if you add light mixed is beyond any reason.

[Damião de Góis]

You are very stubborn with Hoyos Sainz and his definition of Garzo that is not that of the real academy of the Spanish language. LEARN AT ONCE THAT THE DEFINITION OF GARZO IS BLUISH, the definition given by your admired Hoyos is his personal appreciation and not the official definition dictionary that is BLUISH record it. This includes shades of blue mixed with gray and green. I repeat that your Ibero-American perception of light eyes is not that of Europe and green-brown eyes here are not considered light.Hoyos Sainz's study is only correct if it is done for the entire national territory, it is not useful for provinces, since in 1978 the regional and provincial configuration in Spain varied

Again? I have already said that you could write in a sudaca public bathroom wall that Garzo means light blue and it would be irrelevant to the Hoyos Sainz study. The Hoyos Sainz study has its own definition of Garzo. I know you aren't the brightest, but that is a very stupid point for someone to make.

You say you are a teacher (i know you aren't but let's assume you are for the sake of comedy). That might be the answer to my question of why sudacas are so retarded: their teachers are already retarded.

Nope, I've interpreted Hoyos Sainz totally correctly. It fits perfectly with Sanchez Fernandez study as well as with TNH. The Blade is dishonest liar who loosens and strictens standards arbitrarily. If you think for a moment that Portugal has anything close to 50% light eyes than you're an idiot as well. I don't know if it was you or some other Portuguese member here who conducted a study on Portuguese parliament and found 13% light eyes. How you get from 13% to 50% even if you add light mixed is beyond any reason.

Dishonest you say? I don't think Portugal is 50% light eyed but it's possible that the sample distorted the results or that he misread some eye colors. But i think changing what it's written on a study to a completely different thing is much worse.

[Cristiano viejo]

Nope, I've interpreted Hoyos Sainz totally correctly. It fits perfectly with Sanchez Fernandez study as well as with TNH. The Blade is dishonest liar who loosens and strictens standards arbitrarily. If you think for a moment that Portugal has anything close to 50% light eyes than you're an idiot as well. I don't know if it was you or some other Portuguese member here who conducted a study on Portuguese parliament and found 13% light eyes. How you get from 13% to 50% even if you add light mixed is beyond any reason.

As idiot as yourself or that sudacagris thinking 35% of Basques have blue eyes and 30% of Cantabrians and Aragonese are blonde.

[Supercomputer]

As idiot as yourself or that sudacagris thinking 35% of Basques have blue eyes and 30% of Cantabrians and Aragonese are blonde.

I never said 35% of blue eyes I said 35% of light eyes. You can't even distinguish blue and light eyes that tells everything one needs to know about you.

[Supercomputer]

Again? I have already said that you could write in a sudaca public bathroom wall that Garzo means light blue and it would be irrelevant to the Hoyos Sainz study. The Hoyos Sainz study has its own definition of Garzo. I know you aren't the brightest, but that is a very stupid point for someone to make.

You say you are a teacher (i know you aren't but let's assume you are for the sake of comedy). That might be the answer to my question of why sudacas are so retarded: their teachers are already retarded.




Dishonest you say? I don't think Portugal is 50% light eyed but it's possible that the sample distorted the results or that he misread some eye colors. But i think changing what it's written on a study to a completely different thing is much worse.

Portugal is exactly 22% light and light mixed eyes according to Tamangini as well as TNH. If you only count blue and grey without light mixed it's only 13%. No way the sample can distort from 22% to 50%.

I never changed what it's written, I simply interpret it differently in accordance with basic common sense with what we know about Spanish eye colour from other studies. Just because it says blue eyes in the study it doesn't mean it cannot also include grey eyes. The famous modern study of Slovenia (my country) says 45% blue eyes, and there was even one study that collects studies from different European countries that used this study to show that Slovenians are more blue eyed than Germans. But when I did a study on Slovenian parliament I got exactly 45% blue plus grey eyes. That study simply included grey eyes under it's "blue" category. This is extremely common. Even worse thing happened in Lebzelter's Serbia study. It says there are 21% "blue" eyes and 29% if you include "light grey" and 52% if you include "dark grey". But when I did a study on 260 Serbian graduates (extremely HQ images) I got exactly 21% blue plus grey eyes and 29% if you include light mixed. And I got 50% If I included dark mixed eyes. This study even included dark mixed eyes under it's "dark grey" category. Incredible. I could give countless more examples. So just because it says something in the study doesn't mean it's the case. Different people have different definition of blue, grey and green eyes etc. and it varies from study to study. That's what I've learned the hard ways when creating my map a long time ago when I had to synchronize various different local studies all using different criteria and terminology.

[Damião de Góis]

I never changed what it's written, I simply interpret it differently in accordance with basic common sense with what we know about Spanish eye colour from other studies. Just because it says blue eyes in the study it doesn't mean it cannot also include grey eyes.

I'm not talking about the Sanchez Fernandez study. It's reasonable to make assumptions in that study because we only have one table and we don't know what those categories mean. I'm talking about the Hoyos Sainz study where you change this into grey, i thought this would be clear by now:



These are clearly mixed eyes. Since we have exact descriptions of what is being measured, it leaves no room for assumptions and other interpretations. So Basque Country doesn't have 35% of blue and grey eyes according to the Hoyos Sainz study.
So basically you referencing a study and changing what written is there, which is very different from making assumptions based on one table.

[sofiagris]

Germany cannot be compared with slovenia, a country of two million inhabitants with another of 80, Slovenia would be a small region of Germany... Northern Germany has many more light eyes than Slovenia and the South a similar number. Statistics give a minimum of 43% blue eyes in Bavaria up to 66% in Schleswig Holstein. The country's average is 54% blue-eyed, almost the same as Poland, dark-eyed is 19% and mixed-eyed is 27%. Using anthropologist Beddoe's method of dividing the mixed eyes by two and adding each half to light and dark, Germans would have 67.5% predominantly light eyes versus 32.5% predominantly dark eyes. Slovenia would have 45% light and 29% dark with 26% mixed, that is, according to Beddoe, 58% lighter and 42% darker, the same level as Austria or southern Germany but darker than the whole of Germany and much darker than north of the German country.
Spain has 17% light 24% mixed and 59% dark, according to the Beddoe method 29% lighter eyes and 71% darker eyes.

Hoyos Sainz literally says that the garzos eyes show an unclean blue

[Supercomputer]

Since we have exact descriptions of what is being measured, it leaves no room for assumptions and other interpretations.

That simply isn't true. I have given you plenty of examples where the description of the criteria in the study says one thing, but when you actually test it yourself you see it's something totally different, but you simply chose to ignore this. This is just the case with these older studies. Authors of the study had one criteria in mind, but the people actually measuring had other. I could give you plenty of other examples. Wesibach's study of Croatian Northern Adriatic says it has 45% blue and grey eyes and additional 8% of eyes labelled "grey-yellow". In the description of the categories it clearly says the "grey-yellow" category are essentially grey eyes with small yellowish admixture - meaning light mixed eyes. That would give us a total of over 50% light and light mixed eyes and in the study itself it gives us that total of eyes labelled "light". But when I actually did a study on Croatia on 25.000 images on matura.hr, Northern Adriatic I found only 36% light and light mixed eyes. Turns out that even the "blue and grey" category included not only light mixed but also evenly mixed eyes. The "blue" category of 30% included unmixed blue and grey eyes and the "grey" category included mixed eyes just like in the Lebzelter's Serbia study and is the case in these old studies. "blue" category includes all unmixed light eyes and the "grey" category includes all mixed eyes. In these old studies you can't rely on how the study describes the categories, they are filled with errors. Sometimes the description is right, sometimes it's wrong. You have to incorporate educated guesses.

I'm talking about the Hoyos Sainz study where you change this into grey, i thought this would be clear by now:



These are clearly mixed eyes. Since we have exact descriptions of what is being measured, it leaves no room for assumptions and other interpretations. So Basque Country doesn't have 35% of blue and grey eyes according to the Hoyos Sainz study.
So basically you referencing a study and changing what written is there, which is very different from making assumptions based on one table.

My map never said that Basque county has 35% blue and grey eyes. I only said it's over 35% light plus light mixed eyes. Light mixed eyes alone are usually around 10%. The Hoyos Sainz study has suspciciously high differences between Northern and Southern Spain. 39% in the Basque county and only 10% in Andalusia. That's why I replaced Hoyos Sainz with Sanchez Fernandez when I updated my map. However I'm not even sure about the Sanchez Fernandez study because it also has things that intuitively doesn't make sense.

In any case, here is from Hoyos Sainz study clearly saying that Navarra, Zaragoza and Gipuzkoa have 1/3 eyes labelled "blue, greyblue, grey and light". That's why I had those regions over 35% in my map.

[sofiagris]

To settle once and for all the discussion about the study by Hoyos Sainz with respect to that of Sanchez Fernandez, here I leave you a study on the Basque population from the Istituto de Ciencias Aranzadi, it is a scientific organization that is formed, among others, by scientists who study the Atapuerca deposit. A true reference of science in Spain and the most outstanding scientists at the forefront of these matters are part of this institute.
In this link you can see how, to carry out the study of the Basque population, they use the data of Dr. Sanchez Fernandez, discarding the small study with prison inmates that Hoyos Sainz carried out, with small population samples. The Aranzadi Institute of Sciences accepts as official the anthropometric data obtained rigorously and scientifically by the prestigious military doctor Luis Sanchez Fernandez with 120,000 young people of military age from the 50 Spanish provinces. In case there was any doubt about using the Hoyos study against that of Sanchez, Spanish science has no doubt.
Also the Espasa encyclopedia with hundreds of volumes, the equivalent in Spain to the British encyclopedia, includes the maps of hair and eye color by province by Luis Sanchez Fernandez in the anthropology section referring to Spain.
Enough of using a small study of 3000 samples poorly carried out in regions that no longer exist, when there are official data used by world-renowned Spanish scientific institutes and the most prestigious encyclopedias, as valid in reference to the study by Dr. Sanchez.
Navarra has 24% blue eyes and not 35% as Hoyos says and Guipuzkoa has 22% blue eyes.

http://w390w.gipuzkoa.net/WAS/CORP/D...icusArt=314548