How pigmentation studies can be decieving

[Supercomputer]

This is from a study on eye colour in Macedonia (today's North Macedonia). As you can see blue eyes are at 18,4%.



This is a from a study on Switzerland that also divides the spectrum into exact same 3 categories (blue, grey and brown). As you can see blue eyes are at 16,1%



A layman (or a person with an agenda) can see this and conclude (or claim) that Macedonians are more blue eyed than the Swiss.

Of course we know this is not true and that Swiss are much more blue eyed than Macedonians. Why does the study show the opposite then? Because the category "blue" in Macedonia study includes grey and light green eyes, while in the Swiss study, only pure blue or light blue was included in the "blue" category, while grey-blue eyes were thrown in the "grey" category.

How do I know this for sure? Because there is another study of Switzerland that found 25% blue eyes. I myself also found 25% blue eyes when I studied the Swiss parliament here: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...liament-study). I also did a study on 750 North Macedonia students and found 18.9% blue and grey (incl. light green as "grey" eyes) here: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...raduate-study)

Here is a map of blue and grey eyes of Ireland. As you can see the average is around 50% (even slightly under 50% actually)



This is from a study of eye colour in Slovenia. As you can see blue and grey eyes total slightly more than 50%. Both those studies also include a mixed category.



A layman can conclude from this that Slovenians have about the same blue and grey eyes than the Irish.

Of course this is not true, but why do the studies show that? Because in the Ireland study all light eyes with even the lightest dark spots that were barely visible were excluded from this category and placed in the "blue-brown" or "grey-brown" category. In the Slovenia study, only heavily mixed eyes were placed under "grey-brown". How do I know this? Because I have conducted a study on the Irish parliament of 220 members where I included eyes with negligible brown spots under lights and found 80% Blue and Grey eyes: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...liament-study)

That's why the problem is synchronizing studies. You have to rely on amateur studies like that of TNH which used same criteria for all countries and use them to make educated guesses when interpreting local scientific ones. Without general knowledge of approximate distribution of blondism across Europe, one can be severely deceived in interpreting local studies.

[Septentrion]

This is from a study on eye colour in Macedonia (today's North Macedonia). As you can see blue eyes are at 18,4%.



This is a from a study on Switzerland that also divides the spectrum into exact same 3 categories (blue, grey and brown). As you can see blue eyes are at 16,1%



A layman (or a person with an agenda) can see this and conclude (or claim) that Macedonians are more blue eyed than the Swiss.

Of course we know this is not true and that Swiss are much more blue eyed than Macedonians. Why does the study show the opposite then? Because the category "blue" in Macedonia study includes grey and light green eyes, while in the Swiss study, only pure blue or light blue was included in the "blue" category, while grey-blue eyes were thrown in the "grey" category.

How do I know this for sure? Because there is another study of Switzerland that found 25% blue eyes. I myself also found 25% blue eyes when I studied the Swiss parliament here: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...liament-study). I also did a study on 750 North Macedonia students and found 18.9% blue and grey (incl. light green as "grey" eyes) here: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...raduate-study)

Here is a map of blue and grey eyes of Ireland. As you can see the average is around 50% (even slightly under 50% actually)



This is from a study of eye colour in Slovenia. As you can see blue and grey eyes total slightly more than 50%. Both those studies also include a mixed category.



A layman can conclude from this that Slovenians have about the same blue and grey eyes than the Irish.

Of course this is not true, but why do the studies show that? Because in the Ireland study all light eyes with even the lightest dark spots that were barely visible were excluded from this category and placed in the "blue-brown" or "grey-brown" category. In the Slovenia study, only heavily mixed eyes were placed under "grey-brown". How do I know this? Because I have conducted a study on the Irish parliament of 220 members where I included eyes with negligible brown spots under lights and found 80% Blue and Grey eyes: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...liament-study)

That's why the problem is synchronizing studies. You have to rely on amateur studies like that of TNH which used same criteria for all countries and use them to make educated guesses when interpreting local scientific ones. Without general knowledge of approximate distribution of blondism across Europe, one can be severely deceived in interpreting local studies.

Ha!ha!ha! So you are pushing for amateur studies to be more credible than professional ones, right ? When people are measured on exactly the same basis, then it OK.

[Supercomputer]

Ha!ha!ha! So you are pushing for amateur studies to be more credible than professional ones, right ? When people are measured on exactly the same basis, then it OK.

No, what I'm saying is that since scientific studies were only local, you can use amateur studies that directly compared different countries as tools on how to interpret local scientific ones since the latter can be deceiving due to different categorization.

What is labelled "blue" or "blond" in some studies is not always the same definition for others.

[Jana]

Yes they can, and TA is great example of that where Bulgaria, Serbia and Romania (and partly Italy) end up being lighter than Croatia. I wonder when will Turkey and Cyprus surpass us too

[Supercomputer]

Yes they can, and TA is great example of that where Bulgaria, Serbia and Romania (and partly Italy) end up being lighter than Croatia. I wonder when will Turkey and Cyprus surpass us too

Yeah tell that to The Blade. I personally don't trust his numbers, but I don't want to argue.

[Jana]

Yeah tell that to The Blade. I personally don't trust his numbers, but I don't want to argue.

It's well known that celebs and models of wog countries have much more light features than average population, especially in Turkey and similar off-white places. Applies to Balkans to a degree too, I noticed for example among Serb actors much more have light eyes, because Serbs are quite dark and value light features (also because there is stigma Balkanites are dark due to Turks).In Croatia is opposite, Med/southern traits are valued and celebs are darker than local population. Here Slavic and northern types aren't popular but Italian or Spanish looking people because we are quite lighter than Balkanites and Turks and don't have darkish complex.

My point = models, actors etc aren't representative at all.

[Komintasavalta]

There's also studies using the Bunak scale where almost no-one is classified as having blue eyes (#12 and #11). For example in this study, 0 out of 332 Mansi are listed as having pure blue eyes (https://theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?331613):

[Supercomputer]

There's also studies using the Bunak scale where almost no-one is classified as having blue eyes (#12 and #11). For example in this study, 0 out of 332 Mansi are listed as having pure blue eyes (https://theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?331613):

Classification of eye colour even when using scales is still a subjective process, not a scientific one. It's still a "call" that someone makes in deciding weather an eye colour is number 11 or 12 and I'm sure two different people would sometimes classify the same eye colour with different numbers. This study on Latvians finds only 67% light eyes (8-16 on Martin scale), while another study on Poland with exact same Martin scale shows 72% light (8-16) eyes. Of course Poles cannot be lighter eyed than Latvians. I think that in the Latvia study they classified all eyes with minimal yellowish parts under #7 even tough that colour is depicted as equally mixed in the scale. If we add #7, Latvians are 82% light eyed which fits perfectly with other studies.

I personally find the Bunak scale idiotic, #9 and #10 are totally identical, and #7 appears darker than #6


cardiovascular short term goal

But to be fair Martin scale also looks stupid, number 9 and 10 look lighter than 11, which looks essentially like number 8.

And on Martin Schulz scale, I honestly can't figure out how people can tell the difference between numbers 1a and 1c

[Komintasavalta]

I think there are also different versions of the Bunak scale, or there is also a version with 20 colors.

Maybe because on different pictures and in different lighting conditions the eyes can look very different. It's the same with those scales.
Here's Bunak scale that was used in anthropological studies in the Tver region in 2016.
http://генофонд.рф/?page_id=22321

Here is the same scale but in the best quality and in better light.

Some eyes look different in these two photos. I suppose in reality they may look different.

Translated from the page linked above:

And the color of the eyes was assessed on the scale of V.V. Bunaka: the photograph shows samples of this scale, with which we compared the color of the subjects' eyes and assigned the desired "score". These precious specimens have been entrusted to us by anthropologists - thank them for that.

But what is the actual Bunak scale? Actually today we have only the name of the eye colours and their description. But even their description on the Internet is not quite correct. For example for number №6.

From the Internet.

№6 - green; uniform green color.

From the thesis of a graduate student of MSU. She cites Bunak's original 1941 book.

№6 - green; the most diverse chromatic elements are mixed approximately in equal quantity and arranged randomly.

Even that scale was made by Perevozchikov only in 2008 and has never been used in research. Only three copies of the scale were produced. One is stored in the Museum of Anthropology of Moscow State University, another at the Department of anthropology of the faculty of biology of Moscow State University and another in the Research Institute of Human Morphology, Russian Academy of Medical Science.

Most of the research in Russia was done in Soviet times and they used samples made in Soviet times.

Here is one of the working version made by Bunak himself. It is stored in the Museum of Anthropology of Moscow State University

[The Blade]

Yeah tell that to The Blade. I personally don't trust his numbers, but I don't want to argue.

I'm not in argument mode either. I'm reserved to your results as well in some cases (still I'm able to point out some good sides of them).
However, models/actors being drastically lighter than other occupations in Balkans and Turkey is just in your and Stearsolina's imagination. Model industry praises Atlanto-Mediterraneans a lot. There's always certain insignificant variation (due to relatively small number of individuals belonging to certain professional field mostly; totals of all fields combined I have are good enough for non-pro studies though) between groups but definitely not great. Models aren't even always the lightest-eyed or the blondest (at least in Bulgaria they weren't). Our economists/scientists were lighter. Ethnic Bulgarian politicians (without Gypsies, Jews and Turks, of course) had the lowest amount of dark hair in my survey and the highest rate of medium brown in fact. Actors in the European world and regions near it are picked for their qualities, not looks. That's not Mexico. In my study of Serbia footballers surpassed actors in terms of light eyes frequency in fact. In the end everyone can stick to his results, views, etc., and I'm not posting this comment in order to make a long discussion of it (I'm indifferent to endless arguments at this point of my membership on TA already) but simply pointing out that the ''Models/actors are drastically lighter than the average population'' is a dumb statement for the white world. Another thing is Portuguese cyclists were much lighter (especially in terms of eye colour) than footballers.