| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 1,196 Given: 677 |
Those numbers for Slovaks, Poles and Belarusians (if they are true) do seem very high...So do the ones for Moldovans...Originally Posted by theuser
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 19 Given: 0 |
You know why? Because these are male Slovaks, Poles and Belarusians. Still that is not solved on your map. Many countries on your map like Italy and France are according to male samples only. So if you don't have female data the only accurate option is to make the map unambiguously for men.
Last edited by theuser; 10-16-2019 at 10:27 AM.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 1,196 Given: 677 |
Stop with your obsession with criticising my map. You got owned (answered all your objections). Regarding studies on male vs female, there just aren't any studies done on female for Italy for example like the one done on recruits by Livi and Chamla for France. Given that many studies were done on recruits it makes sense there wouldn't so much data on females. We just don't now, so like I sad my map is the best that we can guess with limited amount of studies. And men aren't always lighter eyed. Some countries have males lighter eyed, others females (men are generally more blue eyed, but with all light eyes some countries females are lighter.)
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 19 Given: 0 |
I am not crticizing your map. Asking out of curiosity one last question if you don't mind. Because I see distinctive Romanian counties on your map. How did you obtain the distribution in Romanian counties on your map? Pittard has an intermediate category containing "gris-bleus", "gris-verts", "gris", "gris-bruns". From the scarcity of what he provided in his table you had either to exclude the whole Pittard's(second study) intermediate category or include it totally unless you used own guesses. I know you didn't exclude nor include it all because otherwise light eyes in any Romanian county would have been about 10% only 50%+ respectively. So it appears you used an educated guess. Let me share my educated guess: based on Pittard's table below that would be subtracting a range of 3-12% "gris-bruns" from the "moyens" category of any Romanian county,
My results: In my avarege scenario I get most Romanian counties hosting 50%+ light eyes but I assume it is biased and consider my next estimate the most reliable. In my conservative 10% gris-bruns scenario I would get 10 Romanian counties hosting a frequency of 35-50% light eyes; 7 hosting 50-65% light eyes; and 2 hosting 20-35% light eyes. On a note all samplesizes are acceptable(more than about 50 samples) except for one with 11 samples and 20-35% frequency so I'd say I found only 1 county hosting 20-35%. Even in my most conservative 12% gris-bruns scenario I still would get a small minority of 3 Romanian counties hosting 20-35% light eyes.
So I wonder how your map shows 20-35% for most of Romania along with a few of 35-50% and no other frequencies at all.
My educated guess about the range of 3-12% "gris-bruns" is based on that data,
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 1,196 Given: 677 |
Like I said Pittard "Gris" almost certainly contains dark mixed eyes so you can't use this category in the total amount of light eyes. His gris -bruns category is likely for hazel eyes that are mostly brown, leaving the "gris" category with evenly mixed, yellowish dark green as well as unmixed truly light gray/green eyes). So we have to divide this category which contains by far the highest percentage of eyes (24%) by our educated guess into true gray or green eyes and those that contain a (too) high degree of mixture. So how would we make our best guess? Look at other data. His first study has 32% if you include only "blue, gray-blue, and gray" and 35% if you include "green-gray". TNH found 32% of light eyes in Romania, almost exactly that. I counted light eyes in Romanian parliament (excluding minorities) and found around 30%. (even among those many included a yellowish and brownish mixture, but were mostly light). Further more the ratio of pure brown vs blue eyes according to Pitard's study in Romania is 18% vs 43% for men and 12% vs 58% for women and that's including gray-blue into blue. This is a very "dark" ratio that you find in countries with predominately dark eyed population like Serbia (I can give you many examples of countries for this - from what I've seen over the last 12 years looking at studies, ratios of blue vs pure brown are pretty consistent with total light eyes. Blue eyes are usually slightly more than half of all light eyes. I haven't come across a single exception). So we have enough evidence that Romania is probably between 30-35% light eyed according to our definition. No part of Romania is above 50% light eyes, that is ridiculous. Even Hungary is not above 50%.I am not crticizing your map. Asking out of curiosity one last question if you don't mind. Because I see distinctive Romanian counties on your map. How did you obtain the distribution in Romanian counties on your map? Pittard has an intermediate category containing "gris-bleus", "gris-verts", "gris", "gris-bruns". From the scarcity of what he provided in his table you had either to exclude the whole Pittard's(second study) intermediate category or include it totally unless you used own guesses. I know you didn't exclude nor include it all because otherwise light eyes in any Romanian county would have been about 10% only 50%+ respectively. So it appears you used an educated guess. Let me share my educated guess: based on Pittard's table below that would be subtracting a range of 3-12% "gris-bruns" from the "moyens" category of any Romanian county,
My results: In my avarege scenario I get most Romanian counties hosting 50%+ light eyes but I assume it is biased and consider my next estimate the most reliable. In my conservative 10% gris-bruns scenario I would get 10 Romanian counties hosting a frequency of 35-50% light eyes; 7 hosting 50-65% light eyes; and 2 hosting 20-35% light eyes. On a note all samplesizes are acceptable(more than about 50 samples) except for one with 11 samples and 20-35% frequency so I'd say I found only 1 county hosting 20-35%. Even in my most conservative 12% gris-bruns scenario I still would get a small minority of 3 Romanian counties hosting 20-35% light eyes.
So I wonder how your map shows 20-35% for most of Romania along with a few of 35-50% and no other frequencies at all.
My educated guess about the range of 3-12% "gris-bruns" is based on that data,
My regional differentiation on the map is based on Pittards pure brown map and is done under the assumption that those regions with less brown eyes also probably have more light eyes. There is no data available on Romanian regional differences for light eyes. I admit the regional nuance for Romania may well be wrong, but overall I wold say most of Romania is below 35% light eyes. I have provided an exorbitant amount of evidence for latter.
Last edited by Supercomputer; 10-16-2019 at 01:19 PM.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 1,196 Given: 677 |
Also if we look at Romanians from 4 regions in Romania and Ukraine in a chart from Dyachenko they give an average of 0,92 to 1,3 (higher is darker eyed) with a total average of 1,06.
If we compare this eye color average to say Serbia also from Dyachenko it has "all Serbia" at 0.98 - very similar to Romanian average of 1,06 - slightly darker - which further supports my notion that Romanians are similar in eye pigmentation to Serbs. If they are indeed even slightly darker eyed that would fit given how Romanians plot genetically (slightly Southern than Serbia) Serbia is around 30% light eyed for men according to studies. So if anything I should have pained Romania even darker than I did.
You can also see from the above chart that Moldovans have an average of between 0,74 and 1,12 with an average of all regions of 0,94 which further supports my notion that Moldovans are slightly but not much lighter eyed than Romanias.
Bulgarians also have an average of very slight more than Serbs (1,01 vs 0,98.) which fits very well into what TNH and Wiazemsky found.
And none of this I have discovered now. All these calculations I did al long time ago before making my map and I used them in my educated guesses on how to make it.
Last edited by Supercomputer; 10-16-2019 at 01:46 PM.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 19 Given: 0 |
Brown pigments are in the "brun" category based on common sense so I think they are in the "gris-brun" not in the "gris" category. Yellowish pigments are all the way to 12 on Martin so it would be wrong to exclude them.
I know your type of negligent exclusion only by surname. TNH was retarded enough not to know that in Communist countries all ethnic minorities's personal names were changed and some ethnic minorities didn't change their names back. So although your criteria of recognition is the paternal line you have fake surnames. Or universal surnames for any ethnic groups. For the most retarded like TNH the criteria is the "ev/ov" or "ski" ending to consider some deputy a Bulgarian. Then other ignorant nerds freak out reciting this as evidence of the general population without recognising ethnic minorities at all. After all that research of TNH is too poor to give it more time. TNH didn't want to waste his time by even a second post and disappeared from the forum with one post only. TNH was an incapable man of hubris who said he has too much money to discuss anything about his study. Given all his negligence and timesaving he doesn't even deserve to be discussed.TNH found 32% of light eyes in Romania, almost exactly that. I counted light eyes in Romanian parliament (excluding minorities) and found around 30%. (even among those many included a yellowish and brownish mixture, but were mostly light).
I know you have no research to back this overconfidence. Our definition is excluding brown pigments as I understand it. Ridiculous because of geographic location or what I don't get it here.according to our definition. No part of Romania is above 50% light eyes, that is ridiculous.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 1,196 Given: 677 |
Brown pigments aren't necessarily just in the gris-brun category. Just because this category exists doesn't mean all mixed eyes are in there. Plenty of studies use "gray" category that include hazel eyes. I have showed enough evidence that Romanians are pred. dark eyed population comparable to Bulgarians or Serbs and this category likely includes mostly brown or dark hazel eyes. Have you even read my posts? You even have Romanians on this very thread they are 2/3 pure brown. How much evidence do I have to show you? Stop with non argumentative bashing of TNH I have showed many times how his numbers fit very well with studies. You sound like you're just someone who is butthurt because you don't like his numbers. Fake surnames in communist countries? First time, I've heard of it, sounds like just some BS you came up with to discredit numbers you don't like. Even if it some MPs I counted were really non-Romanian, it likely wasn't significant (Romania is a homogenous country 89% of the population is ethnic Romanian). Also fist Pittard study was from very early 20th century and he found 32% light eyes. I'm tired of debating this same issue with you. I show you all the evidence in the world, but you just ignore it and then come up with some really dumb arguments that aren't even worth addressing.
According to this poll I created most TA members think Romanians are darker than Serbs.
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...s-or-Romanians
If I made Romanians 45% light eyed according to what you want I would have to totally redefine "light eyes" and make all other countries much lighter eyed too.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 1,196 Given: 677 |
What Coon wrote about Romanians:
Eighty-eight per cent of the men have black or dark brown to brown hair, the rest light brown or blond. Pure dark eyes are found among 54 per cent, light eyes among 11 per cent, with the rest mixed, mostly dark-mixed. Thus the population is prevailingly brunet, as well as moderately tall, intermediate in body build, and sub-brachycephalic.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 19 Given: 0 |
It is appearant whose arguments are dumb. I don't know how do you think you have all the evidence in the world. I didn't know you are that freaked out. I was saying that you don't have evidence for the ethnic background of some people and your statement("No part of Romania is above 50% light eyes, that is ridiculous.") and you change the subject. And Ive never said that any figure is what I want. Don't put words into my mouth. I don't have anything to argue with you or TNH who don't allow me to reply to their nonsense because they have too much money or quasievidence.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks