PDA

View Full Version : Cephalic Index and the Nordish Ideal



Von Braun
Thursday, August 19th, 2004, 11:39 PM
The poll/thread on cephalic index in this forum made me ponder something. I am genuinely perplexed about why a certain range cephalic indices are idealized.

First, I'll digress. Hypothetically, if someone put a gun to my head and took me to two women, one from China and one from the Ivory Coast, and told me that I must choose one of them to have sex with, I would certainly pick the former. I cannot speak for others, but my common sense tells me that most other racially-conscious Whites see Asians as more attractive than sub-Saharan Africans. Indeed, women on Skadi indicated that they see Asian men as more attractive than sub-Saharan African men. On top of this, any thinking person can see that Mongoloids are immensely superior to Congoids.

With this in mind, I will first reiterate a fact that most here probably know: the Caucasoid range of cephalic indices falls between those of Congoids and Mongoilds, and is higher than the former and lower than the latter. Historically, the ideal has been dolichocephalic White people with fair hair and eyes. I can esily see the rationale for idealizing fair hair and eyes: those traits distinguish one from other human groups, and because they are inherently captivating. However, I am very confused as to why many racially-conscious Whites are proud of their low CIs, or actually envy other Whites who have lower CIs, in light of what I have written so far in this post: dolichocephalic Whites are closer to Congoids in the category of CI than brachycephalic Whites are (who are in turn closer to Mongoloids in this category).

To me, it seems like the Nordish ideal should be a light-haired, light-eyed, brachycephalic UP. Yet dolicocephaly, which borders our less desirable human cousins, is seen as "better" than bracycephaly, which borders our cousins who are far better than the former.

Maybe I am missing something very subtle, but I have no idea what it might be. To me it seems very cut and dry. Will someone shed light on this?

SouthernBoy
Friday, August 20th, 2004, 01:23 AM
First of all, I believe the love for dolichocephaly is mainly because it is a Nordic trait. The lower indices are much more common with fair hair and eyes, as you said are more appreciated than darker types. So the love of low indices may be simply a love for the certain way that type looks. Perhaps you are correct in saying that some brachycephals have a larger brain than dolichocephals, but in my experience the human head form has a tendency of balancing out itself. i.e. dolichocephals with projecting occiputs, and brachycephals with receding occiputs.

Axelrod
Friday, August 20th, 2004, 05:49 PM
modern day halstatt is rather submesocephalic. dolichocephaly is more common among meds. but i dont think one can reach a point by applying standard caucasoid cephalic/anthropological data on other sub species regarding distances to each other in terms of cranial similarities etc.

Von Braun
Friday, August 20th, 2004, 10:56 PM
modern day halstatt is rather submesocephalic. dolichocephaly is more common among meds. but i dont think one can reach a point by applying standard caucasoid cephalic/anthropological data on other sub species regarding distances to each other in terms of cranial similarities etc.

Yes, the SNPA website lists some Nordic groups with CIs in the high 70s and even low 80s. So in reality Nordics are mesocephalic on average (maybe because the hypothesized mixing with UPs did in fact take place). It is still perplexing why some Nordicists have idealized dolicocephaly in spite of the fact that Nordics are on average mesocephalic.

Louky
Monday, August 23rd, 2004, 01:15 PM
Well, there's dolicocephaly and there's dolicocephaly. Extreme dolicocephaly in the case of Congoids is rarely seen, if at all, in Europeans, even in SE. What seems to be preferred is the overall shape of crania. We seem to favor a rounded occiput. The Armenoidal type with its flat occiput is not aesthetically pleasing to me and most others here I'd imagine. However, a wider head than the Nordic looks good as long as it's accompanied by a rounded occiput and longer longitudinal dimension.

Von Braun
Monday, August 23rd, 2004, 03:17 PM
Well, there's dolicocephaly and there's dolicocephaly. Extreme dolicocephaly in the case of Congoids is rarely seen, if at all, in Europeans, even in SE. What seems to be preferred is the overall shape of crania. We seem to favor a rounded occiput. The Armenoidal type with its flat occiput is not aesthetically pleasing to me and most others here I'd imagine. However, a wider head than the Nordic looks good as long as it's accompanied by a rounded occiput and longer longitudinal dimension.

Say you had an Alpine-Nordic woman with long blond hair covering her flat occiput? How would you tell?

SouthernBoy
Tuesday, August 24th, 2004, 12:25 AM
It is easy to tell most of the time. In my opinion longer faces seem more mature, but thats just one of those things you gain in childhood. I think there should be seperate discussion about preference and brain weight/intelligence if that is what is being implied.

Hersir_Hasteinn
Tuesday, August 24th, 2004, 03:27 AM
I was confused by this for a while to. My ownly guess is the scandinavian trait to be longer-headed (which doesn't always mean dolichocephalicy, to my knowledge) or something along those lines.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Wednesday, August 25th, 2004, 05:53 AM
Blondism has its highest frequency along the Baltic. In this same area are some of the largest headed and round-headed people in Europe. Black Africans can be long-headed or round-headed. About the only generalization which can be made is that it is hard to find a Mongoloid which is long-headed.

norda
Wednesday, August 25th, 2004, 11:46 AM
Blondism has its highest frequency along the Baltic. In this same area are some of the largest headed and round-headed people in Europe. Black Africans can be long-headed or round-headed. About the only generalization which can be made is that it is hard to find a Mongoloid which is long-headed.
There are at least two dolichocephalic Asian races: Arctic and Pacific types. Paleoasiatic type, so common among Ainu, also tend to longer headed. Contemporary Europe is indeed one of the most brachcephalic continents with brachy center not along Baltic but in Alpine (racial and geographic) region.

norda
Wednesday, August 25th, 2004, 12:00 PM
Yes, the SNPA website lists some Nordic groups with CIs in the high 70s and even low 80s. So in reality Nordics are mesocephalic on average (maybe because the hypothesized mixing with UPs did in fact take place). It is still perplexing why some Nordicists have idealized dolicocephaly in spite of the fact that Nordics are on average mesocephalic.
Yes
Generally speaking Nordics are mesocephalic indeed with CI 79 mean but the correlation of traits is rather weak. As far as I remember, at the beginning of XXc., only 11% of Swedes fulfilled “pure” Nordic criteria.

norda
Wednesday, August 25th, 2004, 12:09 PM
First of all, I believe the love for dolichocephaly is mainly because it is a Nordic trait.Because CI was introduced to differ Germanic Swedes from Laps.


The lower indices are much more common with fair hair and eyes This is not right neither in G.Britain nor in Skandinavia but it depends on regional differences.

Prodigal Son
Wednesday, August 25th, 2004, 12:11 PM
Yes
Generally speaking Nordics are mesocephalic indeed with CI 79 mean but the correlation of traits is rather weak. As far as I remember, at the beginning of XXc., only 11% of Swedes fulfilled “pure” Nordic criteria.

18%, if Nordic is taken to mean tall, blond and light-eyed dolicopcephal. If the label is extended to tall, blond and light-eyed ('blond' being defined as Fischer #7-26, 1-3) mesocephals, 27% of Swedes qualify.

Prodigal Son
Wednesday, August 25th, 2004, 12:14 PM
The lower indices are much more common with fair hair and eyes

Actually, there is a very significant positive correlation between CI and depigmentation.

norda
Wednesday, August 25th, 2004, 12:28 PM
18%, if Nordic is taken to mean tall, blond and light-eyed dolicopcephal. If the label is extended to tall, blond and light-eyed ('blond' being defined as Fischer #7-26, 1-3) mesocephals, 27% of Swedes qualify.
And dolicopcephaly understand as...?
Traditional (less then 75) dolichocephalics consisted only 25% of Swedes so the border was probably higher (76-77?) especially considering that many of them (up to 75) correlated with "Med traits".

Prodigal Son
Wednesday, August 25th, 2004, 12:41 PM
My mistake - 29% of Swedes qualify as 'Nordic' if mesocephals ('mesocephalic being defines as having a CI of <78) are included into the definition:

Frank H. Hankins
The Racial Basis of Civilization : A critique of the Nordic doctrine, New York & London, Alfred A. Knopf, 1931,

pp. 194-195

"From the monumental Anthropologia Suecica (1902) of Retzius and Fuerst detailing the traits of nearly 45,000 recruits, one learns that pure Nordic types combining genuinely long heads, tall stature, fair hair and light eyes were found to the extent of 10.7; that these, together with those with similar traits except for mesocephalic heads, comprised 29 per cent of the entire population."

rainman
Thursday, March 26th, 2009, 06:50 PM
I've noticed that more primitive people usually have very little forehead and the back of their head juts out behind the neck. This seems true in all races. The criminals, poor etc. have a high occurance of this but is most common among blacks.

Nordic I think has a less wide head, does not jut out in the back very much (is more like an oval on top of neck- primitive type is like the oval is layed down- not tall at all). Though Nordics sometimes have a small jut in the back whereas I guess falish and alpine usually have a very rounded back of the head that goes almost straight up from the neck. Usually in blacks you see the hyper extended back of the head. The Nordics make up for it in having high foreheads. Overall the head may not be as deep or wide, but is generally taller. High foreheads have been associated with intelligence, upper class and civility since very far back. Not saying all Nordics qualify but that is generally the case. It is why we have the term "high brow". The area of the forehead contains the frontal and prefrontal cortex of the brain- this is involved in self control, rational thought, problem solving, foreward thinking etc. Maybe a wide forehead is also good I don't know. The huge back of the head seems to have a larger occipital lobe and usually when accompanied by small forehead very little frontal lobe. The occipital lobe mainly process visual information, emotional associations etc. Thus the more primitive wired brain generally thinks more emotionally and reacts more instinctually. I'll give an example say if everytime you saw an elephant you got punched in the face. A typical pavolvian reaction would occur and you would associate the sight of the elephant with pain. Thus you may see an elephant and run. This association primarily occurs in the occipital. Possibly somewhat in the parietal region of the brain. Basically near the back of the head. Whereas a person who has self control and rationally thinks out his decisions- that occurs in the front of the head near the forehead. I once looked at pictures of great scientists, philosophers, thinkers etc. There were a few rare ones that had average foreheads but about 95% had great big foreheads.

Recently I was researching about correlation of blondness and intelligence. Hard to find info but if you have lighter features (like blond) you are slightly more likely to be poor. Among whites most scientists and geniuses are darker haired. Yet because say in Great Britain occurance of blondness is about 25%. At least in Britain, the ratio of blondes who are geniuses is higher than would be expected for their relative percent of the population. I guess blondes constitute more of the upper and lower stratum then. Thus blondes are more likely to be over accomplished in science and such. I can find no data on correlation within the white race between I.Q. and being Nordic.

Here is a good idealized Nordic with a large brain. Check out the narrow face, yet the huge forehead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordicism

And a more standard Nordic:
http://clearblogs.com/uploads/d/danna48/17787.jpg

You can see how the face is less wide, but it doesn't mean that overall the brain is smaller. Contrast that with a congoid. Tiny head, almost no forehead.

http://z.about.com/d/worldnews/1/7/L/4/-/-/drc_civil_war_congo.JPG

I suppose this is more Alpine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpine_race
Though I'm not seeing a big difference between the Alpine of South/East Europe and Brunn type of Ireland/west Britain. Basically you have more robust almost more primitive features. Wider head overall, usually not as large a forehead.

The falish type is rather Nordic like but often with a wider face and maybe somewhat lower brow. Very good illustration here:
http://www.rabenclan.de/attachments/Magazin/MagazinSvenScholzAryanE_Arier_ns-prop03.jpg
Sometimes the head does not potrude as far in the back. If you look at my photo on my avatar you can see I am heavily Nordic with some admixture and a bit wider than average face for the Nordic. I like that better than the more typical Nordic as I think I have the best of both worlds a more falish wideness (possibly via Alpine influence) yet a general Nordic overall composition. Though I'm darker than the typical Nordic. Possibly Alpine or other influence there.