Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40

Thread: Racially Progressive Tendencies in Homo Sapiens

  1. #21
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Online
    Friday, November 28th, 2008 @ 07:33 PM
    Ethnicity
    Danish
    Subrace
    West-Baltid + Pontid
    Country
    Norway Norway
    Location
    Oslo
    Gender
    Age
    38
    Occupation
    Typographer
    Posts
    616
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Sv: Racially progressive tendencies in Homo sapiens

    I think the core of this issue is what people consider to be progressive and therefore desirable traits. For some reason those traits have been, above anything, the traits of aggression, determination, will power etc. Nordids are indeed the most progressive race, but for different reasons. If some people have missed that is because they measure by a different scale. The most natural, heritable character trait of all Nordids is justice. In fact, justice has certain parallels with janteloven, in-scandinavia-only phenomenon.

    Justice is a collective achievement. Aggression, determination etc are individual, and as we all know the future of evolution is no longer in evolution of man, but in evolution of society as a living organism.

    The most anti-nordid race are the nordids themselves.

  2. #22
    Progressive Collectivist
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Agrippa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 31st, 2011 @ 10:22 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Asgard
    Gender
    Politics
    Progressive Collectivist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    6,968
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    11 Posts

    AW: Racially progressive tendencies in Homo sapiens

    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Eld
    Logically cc will be higher in more brachycephalic races. I've already told you a couple of times, cultural achievements, intellectual and material developments were low to nothing in progressive scandinavia.

    Thats absolute nonsense, even ridiculous. Brachycephaly is a method of saving, even Dienekes argued that once, since round skulls have the biggest volume with the smallest surface. This means a reduction of bone structure which might be a saving, insofar cheaper, so again pointing in the direction I said. But brachycephalic people have only if comparing worldwide larger volumes because so many primitive types being included, in Europe its not true and the unreduced Cromagnoid and progressive leptomorphic forms have the highest volumes.
    Brachycephaly for itself is not contradiction neither since there are progressive Dinaroids, Alpinoids and Tungids around too with relatively high cranial volume, but not really higher than Nordid or Atlantomediterranid.

    The relative comparison with body size or height is ridiculous as well with Mongolids having a shorter body as cold adaptation, with shorter legs. If comparing the trunk only things look again very different and in all calibrated comparisons Nordid variants are in the peak group, in absolute measurements they are anyway.


    That's not anti-nordid nor anti-germanic to say, its reallity.

    Its a propaganda myth, based on what? Anti-Nord bias?


    European refined, cultural peaks throughout history blossomed primarily around the hellenistic/romance world. A region in which alpinids were numerous. For instance look at france, with alpinid napoleon pushing the collective to a higher grade of quality.

    First I didnt denied achievements of Alpinoid types, I even wrote that all Europid types are rather progressive at least with local and individual exceptions (compare with the Eastbaltids above), there are even quite progressive Alpinoids there en masse, they just reach peaks less often and the tendency of Alpinisation for itself is degenerative, not Alpinoids as such being degenerated or not being able to achieve great things, never said that.

    Napoleon though wasnt Alpinid, if you are a Dodona-reader you should know his pictures as well as those of his son, he wasnt Alpinid, he wasnt even short for his time, again you just repeating nonsense without any base.

    The French are quite mixed, never said that mixtures must be negative, but if its about progressive traits the social stratification is especially in France very clear. If you ever had the chance to compare you might be impressed by the clear dominance of progressive types in the political and scientific elite of the country.

    Furthermore Indoeuropeans influenced this cultures heavily, the base of Europe is Indoeuropean and the base of the Indoeuropeans was Nordoid and progressive.

    And sure there exist numerous threads, and non with any significant proof.
    There are proofs in this threads, read them and then ask again. Even the cranial capacity+intelligence issue should be clear. For a world comparison progressive traits are under the best markers to predict a populations intelligence level under better conditions.

    And lundman would be uninfluenced and objective? Look at those pathetic pictures, fat, alcohol addicted, problematic, untended and above all unhappy individuals.
    Sure, they get mesognathy and skull shapes like that because they are unhappy...furthermore body build can be considered a racial characteristic to a certain degree.
    Furthermore what does this have to do with progressive traits for itself? If they have a different head position, more often mesognathy with a negative chin and rather infantile proportions thats a fact which is not open to discussion and that are traits which are in clear contrast to progressive traits.


    Conclusion; clearly selected to fulfill and satisfy the image. Last year i had a class covering advertising and everything that comes into play, psychology, image creating etc.. and its clear that non of the according to lundman lesser types is handsome nor smiling and particularly ugly, it gives a very twisted impression, but the nordids are properly dressed, smiling, have good lighting, etc.. Its a pure propaganda statement.

    In fact Lundmans pictures are those which are least propagandistic, because they dont show the most attractive Nordids all the time. But if you like compare on Dodona this thread about the Swiss for comparing really average people, the result is the same though:
    http://www.dodonaforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1292


    cromagnid/faelid types outnumber nordid males in modeling, primitive/robust characteristics such as protruding cheekbones and malars are apparently considered hot, so go figure

    Balanced Cromagnid tendencies are progressive. Did I say something different? But that they really outnumber males in general, well, probably in the current fashion, though I doubt it...


    And the criticism on dodona, that its reality.. Accept for gareth, you seem to stand alone, i don't see glenlivet nor edwin nor morfrain encilgar nor dienekes nor fransjozef nor human2 following you, perhaps except for a few people on skadi and dodona with limited knowledge, and that doesn't indicate that i would have unlimited knowledge.

    Its a sensitive issue for many, consider that too and you should know that people are rather reluctant to accept some conclusions. However, the facts speak for itself.

    I should offer the advice, take a closer look at the roman aristocracy.

    That was done in various threads already, I have proven that most of them are very progressive by definition, by description most were leptomorphic too and the most successful leaders were Schizothymes. So what do you want to tell me or anybody else with that?
    That they were not all Nordid? True, but I never said that Nordids are the only progressive type, if you understood it that way read what I have written again. I just spoke of Nordid being the general benchmark and dominant form for Central-Eastern and especially Northern Europe, but that doesnt make progressive "exclusive" neither the physical nor psychic ones. We are always speaking about frequencies...
    Magna Europa est patria nostra
    STOP GATS! STOP LIBERALISM!

  3. #23
    Progressive Collectivist
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Agrippa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 31st, 2011 @ 10:22 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Asgard
    Gender
    Politics
    Progressive Collectivist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    6,968
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    11 Posts

    AW: Sv: Racially progressive tendencies in Homo sapiens

    Quote Originally Posted by goldgrube
    I think the core of this issue is what people consider to be progressive and therefore desirable traits. For some reason those traits have been, above anything, the traits of aggression, determination, will power etc. Nordids are indeed the most progressive race, but for different reasons. If some people have missed that is because they measure by a different scale. The most natural, heritable character trait of all Nordids is justice. In fact, justice has certain parallels with janteloven, in-scandinavia-only phenomenon.
    Fairness is a better word to describe it in my opinion, since justice is a very relative thing, but fairness is clear and usually even the more scheming and brutal Nordids might have a certain sense for fairness.

    Other than that, aggression is not the right word, but determination is. Aggressive can be primitive races too, but rather as an individual and more in an affective way, whats making a schizothymic personality progressive is the combination of self-control, will, intelligence and analytical abilities. Obviously schizothymy without a minimal intelligence is not just as, but most likely even more problematic than zyklothymy without it, because they have at least their emotional and instinctive logic which those schizothymes lack in the worst case too.


    Justice is a collective achievement. Aggression, determination etc are individual, and as we all know the future of evolution is no longer in evolution of man, but in evolution of society as a living organism.
    No, its a evolution of man too because without the necessary people you won't reach certain higher states of development, thats even crucial. Justice, again important to point that out, is a relative thing, there is no absolute justice in this world, but what really counts is the benefit for the group.

    The most anti-nordid race are the nordids themselves.
    Unfortunately yes, because they being stripped of collective social structures and identities, partly by themselves, partly by foreign elements and socio-economic necessities. As individuals schizothymes often tend to be too trusting or not "clever enough" in social areas, if they didnt learned it, learned how to cope with certain kind of people, they are just not made for dealing with a high (better un-)social intelligence which might exploit their idealism and effectiveness for power and profits of a foreign group. A good example would be brave and decent middle class Euro-Americans even with a certain ethos which finally just fight the wars both in the military and economic sector for their corrupted plutocracy while working against their own people. That's the result of an Individualism ideology going to far and the lack of group orientation, compare:

    Why Are Europeans More Secular and Americans more Religious?

    Our Secret Constitution: How Lincoln Redefined American Democracy


    Individual Freedom vs. Ethnocultural Preservation


    Weak Europeans



    Now its about to correct that and letting progressive individuals working for their blood lines and the collective again, not against each other for the reasons of sheer profit or misleading ideologies.

    Its interesting, even very negative socio-cultural influences like New Christian beliefs, Liberalism or Marxism didnt too much harm to the natural grown societies in the North, they partly even were used in a reasonable and rational manner for the group for a very long time. But now, with the final destruction of local communities, at least in the cities as well as the total victory of Liberalism and mass immigration, that kind of soft adaptation to the needs of the people doesnt work any longer and its necessary to revolutionise society - for the best of the individuals and the group. The traditional resistance is broken and the traditional way to cope with such new influences doesnt work any longer, not even in the North. Its about changing things in a rational manner to the better of the group and mankind - which has to mean facing contraselection and human differences which led to a decrease of positive variants and a false distribution of talents since not all variants are as good in some areas. F.e. some personalities are just much easier to corrupt, but at the same time tend to be "more social active" so they get more often politicians in a "democratic system", such things must be faced with determination.
    Magna Europa est patria nostra
    STOP GATS! STOP LIBERALISM!

  4. #24
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    -
    Gender
    Posts
    2,858
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Arrow Re: Racially progressive tendencies in Homo sapiens

    There are a few things that you've said Agrippa that just don't ring true with me, and I just can't help but think that you place too much emphasis on the correlation between schizothymes and introverts, as well as zyklothymes and extroverts. I've seen that in one of the other threads that you provided a link to, you've already acknowledged that schizothymes aren't always introverted and I'm assuming that zyklothymes aren't always extroverted... however, you already know that I'm not familiar with Kretschmer's system. I can't help but think that it would be a mistake to so freely use the terms schizothyme/introvert and zyklothyme/extrovert interchangably. They have different definitions after all, right?

    http://www.writersvillage.com/charac...troversion.htm


    you must keep in mind that in the past social structures were more clear and it was not necessary for the individual to be too extraverted, partly even the contrary was true with schizothymes being more cautious, forward-thinking and planned
    So are you saying that you think it woud be beneficial for individuals within a population to be extroverted if living within a community with flimsy social structures/boundaries?? Wouldn't extroverts be more likely to need strict social rules and regulations as guidance, as they seek theirs (guidance) from external sources rather than from internal??

    I can see how introverts may oftentimes be the theorists when it comes to policy making, but the extroverts would be more likely to be the ones to apply them in a practical sense, as they are the ones who are socially oriented and interactive.

    they (schizothymes) had rather an advantage especially in a constantly changing climate
    I can't see how being a schizothyme would be an advantage... aren't they more fixed and less flexible in their views/approaches? Surely in a changing climate adaptability would be adventageous (zyklothymic, right?). Being socially oriented and more considerate of others would be an advantage.

    Group orientation can be stronger too then since introverts tend to think more schematic and analytic, so if the culture gives certain guidelines and they see the benefit they will act accordingly,
    I was under the impression that introverts are not more analytical... they are just inclined to analyse their own interanl world, while extroverts are more likely to analyse the external world iykwim. In which case introverts can make great theorists, yet they are untimately more self-absorbed and their thoughts and ideas are only useful to the group insofar as they can be applied to the outside world and be representative of universal norms. A correlation that very introspective, introverted people would have a problem making or even being interested in.

    Group orientation can be stronger too then since introverts tend to think more schematic and analytic, so if the culture gives certain guidelines and they see the benefit they will act accordingly, spiritual connections being very important too.
    Group "orientation" will always be stronger with extroverts being dominant. Although group "organisation" I can see would be greatly enhanced by having many more introverted characters putting their heads together.

    Extraversion and very social behaviour is coming more from the individual rather than the group selection, for the group its not as necessary as for the individual, especially in a chaotic system.
    What? Extoversion is not more individualistic! (Not that I can see??) Rather introversion is. Extroverts are social because they consider the outside world (other people, external structures etc) before themselves. Extroverts are not prone to self-reflection as introverts are.

    I think you wrote somewhere that introverts are more likely to form strong connections in inter-personal relationships, this too I find hard to believe. For illustrative purposes.... In my mind an EXTREME introvert would be a person on the autisic spectrum, so even in less extreme cases of introversion people would have more difficulty in "reading" people, sympathising with, empathising with and feeling emotion for others etc, all of which are necessary social skills and attributes for forming deeper inter-personal/social bonds.

    My conclusion would be that neither introversion nor extroversion could be considered progressive traits, as both are valuable and needed within a functional population. Both work well together. Introversion needed for production of more abstract theories and conception of models of social organisation, while more exptoverted group members would be instrumental in applying theories in a practical sense and perhaps even working out strategies of implimentation, as they are more in touch with how abstract theories would need to be refined in order to be optimally relevant in an external world.

    Introverts would be rather useless and imbalanced without extroverts and vice versa.

    N.B. I was going to start a separate thread on the subject of introversion/extroversion so as to not detract from the original subject of this thread.... but then I thought that this may be a violation of Skadi rules?? To begin another thread with a direct quote from an original thread?

  5. #25
    Progressive Collectivist
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Agrippa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 31st, 2011 @ 10:22 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Asgard
    Gender
    Politics
    Progressive Collectivist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    6,968
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    11 Posts

    AW: Re: Racially progressive tendencies in Homo sapiens

    Quote Originally Posted by Bridie
    There are a few things that you've said Agrippa that just don't ring true with me, and I just can't help but think that you place too much emphasis on the correlation between schizothymes and introverts, as well as zyklothymes and extroverts. I've seen that in one of the other threads that you provided a link to, you've already acknowledged that schizothymes aren't always introverted and I'm assuming that zyklothymes aren't always extroverted... however, you already know that I'm not familiar with Kretschmer's system. I can't help but think that it would be a mistake to so freely use the terms schizothyme/introvert and zyklothyme/extrovert interchangably. They have different definitions after all, right?

    http://www.writersvillage.com/charac...troversion.htm
    The problem is coming from a definition of introverted which refers mostly to the behaviour, both your idealised view on it as well as how you are really acting in a social environment. Now schizothymes are able to learn, basically by try and error combined with their logic and rationality - if being to dumb they cannot learn, if being too intelligent they often tend to consider too much things and being hampered by that in simple situations until they figured clear cut strategies out. That comes again from changing, unstable social environments with unclear structures, otherwise they would understand quite fast, even faster the rules of a given system.

    Now introversion as a function can be different from that, since it means how you deal with certain challenges by preference and explains how you function in a social environment. For that I would argue that depressive zyklothymes can score sometimes introverted and well-functioning schizothymes which figured social strategies out MODERATELY extraverted. Otherwise we dont deal with clear schizothymes or zyklothymes, so there is a clear correlation and populations with more introverts must be as a rule more schizothymic, but its not absolute.

    So are you saying that you think it woud be beneficial for individuals within a population to be extroverted if living within a community with flimsy social structures/boundaries??
    Sure, because they tend to "take things like they come" without thinking too much more often and are free adapt to whatever comes in social and personal situations more easily. They are more often born opportunists.


    Wouldn't extroverts be more likely to need strict social rules and regulations as guidance, as they seek theirs (guidance) from external sources rather than from internal??
    Thats true and a reason why they dont lead in many areas. An introvert/schizothymic is difficult to get, but once you got him, feels and understands a principle, he will defend it, most likely to his end - only if being very disppointed, getting new informations or great chances in his life, his basic stance will change again. So they will bring things forward with their goal oriented and fanatic way of thinking in some areas - not all are like that, but those who are can't be substituted in a higher evolved society from the hunter gatherers, to the herders to modern elites.

    So the extraverts have less of a problem with a lack of clarity and consistency in a society, but they function themselves on a lower level without guidance. But thats finally not too often the case, if you go higher and higher, schizothymes become more and more dominant and only hypomanic zyklothymes with schizothymic tendencies ("the big organisers") can really be superiour then.

    I can see how introverts may oftentimes be the theorists when it comes to policy making, but the extroverts would be more likely to be the ones to apply them in a practical sense, as they are the ones who are socially oriented and interactive.
    Thats a fallacy. They might take over some positions and jobs which have to be done too, but those which really change things are the schizothymes. Again, the typical zyklothymic individual just acts according to practical needs and is not great theorist nor having the fanatism to begin with a drastic change or having the energy to be concentrated on a theoretical or moral problem for almost a life time like many schizothymes. Once they understood, they have their schizothyme guru, things might change.
    Again the only exception being high functioning hypomanics with schizothymic tendencies, they can be great leaders, but usually such charismatic leaders being surrounded by schizothymes withouth them they would be still nothing because they finally are the high functioning army and leadership even then.


    I can't see how being a schizothyme would be an advantage... aren't they more fixed and less flexible in their views/approaches? Surely in a changing climate adaptability would be adventageous (zyklothymic, right?). Being socially oriented and more considerate of others would be an advantage.
    Well, they are better for long time planning, analysing a situation, deciding rational, being endurant physically and mentally (dont forget the physical correlation) and having the fanatism to f.e. attack other groups or hunting even dangerous animals with a clear plan, tactic and surviving with long term strategies, usually being carried on by a good leadership and strong spirituality in the past. They can be very devoted too, but in a more rational than emotional way.

    Zyklothymes are mainly better if the situation as such is stable and strong group orientation not necessary, so they can care for more personal things, personal relationships etc., this would cause problems if its about rational and hard decisions or long term considerations.


    I was under the impression that introverts are not more analytical...
    No, introverts are much more analytical, especially if excluding the hypersensitive branch, though out of them coming very good analysts too, but often caring more for things like art and special sciences, being closer to Aspergers in some ways...

    they are just inclined to analyse their own interanl world,
    They are more self-reflexive which makes it easier to live for moral standards, they couldnt live with hypocritical contradictions once they recognised them that easily. F.e. a schizothymic "professional robber" must make this to his ethic in one way or another. Its quite typical that if there is no moral for what they do, they must invent some. A zyklothyme on the other hand can live with very open contradictions, even ignore them or laughing and saying, "just did it..." or feeling guilty for a short time, but usually only if other people really approach them, by themselves, with their lack of being self-reflexive, they tend to be less self-critical.
    Thats why they often have advantages in some areas in early life, but might lose it in later life, since schizothymes "constantly work on their personality", often trying to approach perfection in one way or another, whereas zyklothymes "just live" and "take it as it comes..."

    while extroverts are more likely to analyse the external world iykwim.
    Without analysing your internal, you can't truly analyse the external but rather being influenced by it, adapting to it, merge with it. So they are not even less self-critical, but also less critical of their environment - the main problem for a typical zyklothyme is if the "emotional harmony is being disturbed" or someone is not reacting "as usual", since that can confuse them. But as long as that doesnt happen, they just "swim with the stream" - if they swim again, only because a part of their social environment does so to, rather than because they understood by themselves that its necessary. That would presuppose a critical stance, self-reflection and "fun in analytical and thought games" they dont have without being conditioned to it socially - but then its still agains their nature and they will usually only go as far as they have to, to avoid serious conflicts with their surroundings.
    Naturally most philosophers which really constructed "moral buildings" were schizothymic...

    In which case introverts can make great theorists, yet they are untimately more self-absorbed and their thoughts and ideas are only useful to the group insofar as they can be applied to the outside world and be representative of universal norms. A correlation that very introspective, introverted people would have a problem making or even being interested in.
    You are speaking about two problem cases now:
    A) Those being socially not integrated or not able because they didnt learned it.
    B) Those which have truly no interest in changing or manipulating the world around them in any way if they dont have too.

    B) is similar to the typical zyklothymic person in the way of that they have be forced to act for a positive change almost, if they dont have to, they dont feel the need to. They prefer to deal with "very special issues" in their area of interest only. Those are the more extreme cases, partly going fluently over in cases of Aspergers and schizoid people I'd say. They are the creative potential behind, mainly there for giving keywords, working out details or very special scientific problems.

    This is a civilisation type too, probably not always genetically, but in the way of dealing with reality in general. A group of such schizothymes only would have had serious problems in a herder-warrior past too, though they might have been present as an minority element especially in those.

    A) is largely a problem of the society's situation today. Too many which would be otherwise more social interested, would like to participate in a movement "to the better" just deal with "special problems" like the B) case. Not because thats the only thing they want or can, but because thats their way of adapting to the modern context. So superficial and rather zyklothymic people are much more common in "modern 'democratic' political systems" and the schizothymes are too often corrupted schemers. A different kind of leadership than in the aristocratic past or in those areas in which strong character, convictions and analytic abilities as well as fanatism being advantageous like in some areas of management, science, military (officers and elite units!), spiritual elite (priests, monks etc.) and so on.


    Group "orientation" will always be stronger with extroverts being dominant. Although group "organisation" I can see would be greatly enhanced by having many more introverted characters putting their heads together.
    What I'm speaking about is practical group orientation of a society, not theoretical personal approaches - f.e. many zyklothymes would speak about social things and would be personally even more social, but as a whole bunch they aren't, for the reasons mentioned above, no long term planning, no self-critical and generally critical approach as much, oftentimes lacking sensitivity etc.
    There is f.e. a huge difference between general sensitivity in approaching things and being emotional in general, since the former means to consider more, the later is finally rather centered around the own emotions whats true for both of the extremes interestingly, pronounced zyklothymes as well as unbalanced extreme schizothymes, since they are really "caught in their house" so to say...thats a degeneration though, when they are really caught in their own little world without letting anything in any more, without considering external impulses and objective facts.


    What? Extoversion is not more individualistic! (Not that I can see??) Rather introversion is. Extroverts are social because they consider the outside world (other people, external structures etc) before themselves.
    Compare with what I said above, this leads to an uncritical stance towards the outside world which again leads to a superficially "social" but in detail individualistic behaviour without guidance.

    Extroverts are not prone to self-reflection as introverts are.
    Exactly. They are not more individualistic in general behaviour, introverts are, but they are more individualistic in their way of thinking, considering much more their own personal emotional things and close environment before principle thinking. If the principle is working and socialisation too, schizothymes are much more group oriented. They will defend the principle and theoretical group rather than real individuals whats necessary for a group orientation, because if dealing just with individuals people will always stuck to their closest environment without thinking beyond. Thats why in the situation of group selection (balanced-energetic) introverted-schizothymic personalities being more effective.

    I think you wrote somewhere that introverts are more likely to form strong connections in inter-personal relationships, this too I find hard to believe.
    Yes, but on a different base than extraverts, being again more in principle and only to those to which they have a close contact, they learned to appreciate. Extraverts get faster warm, but faster cold also and in every case they are less likely to follow theoretical principles - only if the culture as whole does, since they do practically everything others do...
    Typical for a schizothymic family structure and culture would be f.e. that the honour, belief, moral or whatever can be always considered being as important or more important than those in the close environment finally. Thats making it strong, less prone to degeneration, but also slower in change once a sound system was established. The change usually comes drastically then though...

    For illustrative purposes.... In my mind an EXTREME introvert would be a person on the autisic spectrum, so even in less extreme cases of introversion people would have more difficulty in "reading" people, sympathising with, empathising with and feeling emotion for others etc, all of which are necessary social skills and attributes for forming deeper inter-personal/social bonds.
    Only in a chaotic and unordered system. Furthermore you are right, but mainly for those which have the really extreme, close pathological tendencies as well as those which had a difficult socialisation. The later wouldnt happen in a sound system too often. To compare it, introverts have much less problems in traditional societies f.e., since they have an extended family, many relatives. Its not even supposed to get to know too many new people, you have already many relatives and most people you get to know you get to know through them. Even on the contrary, to be to open with foreigners and elements not accepted by your clan would be dishonorous.
    The social bonds being something which exist not only because you like it, but because its a social construct working for the group - you dont have to like your all your relatives nor do you have to understand it, it just works and it worked already for thousands of years.

    Now that was the society of the past and can be the only one for the future in a modified form, because people need such social cells for feeling connections as they need principles and structure. Otherwise they might feel like lonewolves quite often in the schizothymic case and being just superficial people with arbitrary social relationships which make no sense for the whole in the extraverted case.

    My conclusion would be that neither introversion nor extroversion could be considered progressive traits, as both are valuable and needed within a functional population. Both work well together. Introversion needed for production of more abstract theories and conception of models of social organisation, while more exptoverted group members would be instrumental in applying theories in a practical sense and perhaps even working out strategies of implimentation, as they are more in touch with how abstract theories would need to be refined in order to be optimally relevant in an external world.
    Agreed, but still introversion is more important for a complex society which is still a community and not just a "society".

    Introverts would be rather useless and imbalanced without extroverts and vice versa.
    True again, but problems being greater for extraverts on the long run, because they would lack their aggressive-defensive as well as intellectual-spiritual centre, whereas the former can live quite good on their own too, just with a worse quality of life most likely.
    In the context of group selection the winner is quite clear...

    But finally you are absolutely right, thats what I'm saying all the time too - both are needed. Its rather the zyklothymic extreme which is the least important category finally. They can really just exist with the others...same is true for the very extreme introverted category.
    The ideal being a balanced energetic schizothyme which is the backbone.

    N.B. I was going to start a separate thread on the subject of introversion/extroversion so as to not detract from the original subject of this thread.... but then I thought that this may be a violation of Skadi rules?? To begin another thread with a direct quote from an original thread?
    It makes perfect sense because otherwise this thread which should deal primarily with facts and physical traits would go just around psychic typologies again...Just like you want.
    Magna Europa est patria nostra
    STOP GATS! STOP LIBERALISM!

  6. #26
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    -
    Gender
    Posts
    2,858
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Re: Racially progressive tendencies in Homo sapiens

    I just can't help but think that you place too much emphasis on the correlation between schizothymes and introverts, as well as zyklothymes and extroverts. I've seen that in one of the other threads that you provided a link to, you've already acknowledged that schizothymes aren't always introverted and I'm assuming that zyklothymes aren't always extroverted... however, you already know that I'm not familiar with Kretschmer's system. I can't help but think that it would be a mistake to so freely use the terms schizothyme/introvert and zyklothyme/extrovert interchangably. They have different definitions after all, right?
    What's the point in saying that "introverts" are more progressive, when you mean "schizothyme".

  7. #27
    Progressive Collectivist
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Agrippa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 31st, 2011 @ 10:22 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Asgard
    Gender
    Politics
    Progressive Collectivist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    6,968
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    11 Posts

    AW: Re: Racially progressive tendencies in Homo sapiens

    Quote Originally Posted by Bridie
    What's the point in saying that "introverts" are more progressive, when you mean "schizothyme".
    Because of the correlation which exists. In some schemes its even one thing, but finally its rather about an overlap. What Jung described comes pretty close, but some ways of describing it can be problematic if dealing too much with the behaviour rather than the inner motivation, since schizothymes are as a rule more reserved, but might mask this, might even subjectively feel "very social" if being successful, but the way the approach things would still be different and driven more by the inner world than the outer one.

    If we consider intoversion being the dominance of the inner world over the outer one in the personal approach which is, especially in the more intelligent ones top-heavy, then its clear that schizothymy is the same, but if its about being shy and socially reclusive, than many depressive people would be "introverted" and many schizothymes "extraverted" in their behaviour and appearance.

    Whats really crucial about schizothymes I tried to describe in other threads I linked already.

    I made a new thread: Kretschmer and Sheldon: Test Your Personality (MBTI)

    Last edited by Agrippa; Monday, April 17th, 2006 at 02:35 AM.
    Magna Europa est patria nostra
    STOP GATS! STOP LIBERALISM!

  8. #28
    Senior Member Waarnemer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, June 11th, 2009 @ 08:42 PM
    Subrace
    keltic nordid - trønder
    Gender
    Politics
    fascism
    Posts
    571
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Re: Racially progressive tendencies in Homo sapiens

    Quote Originally Posted by Agrippa
    Thats absolute nonsense, even ridiculous. Brachycephaly is a method of saving, even Dienekes argued that once, since round skulls have the biggest volume with the smallest surface. This means a reduction of bone structure which might be a saving, insofar cheaper, so again pointing in the direction I said. But brachycephalic people have only if comparing worldwide larger volumes because so many primitive types being included, in Europe its not true and the unreduced Cromagnoid and progressive leptomorphic forms have the highest volumes.
    Brachycephaly for itself is not contradiction neither since there are progressive Dinaroids, Alpinoids and Tungids around too with relatively high cranial volume, but not really higher than Nordid or Atlantomediterranid.

    The relative comparison with body size or height is ridiculous as well with Mongolids having a shorter body as cold adaptation, with shorter legs. If comparing the trunk only things look again very different and in all calibrated comparisons Nordid variants are in the peak group, in absolute measurements they are anyway.
    Brachycephalization is only to a small degree associated with infantilization. So like coon pointed out, unreduced, brachycephalic borreby's to be the largest-headed type in europe. And since it's very likely that a bigger head means a bigger brain / cc - without a consideration of bonethickness. I talked about brachycephalized races in the plural, and not even in a firm way as per definition, and surely not in context with westalpinids, lapps, etc..

    borreby as type is interesting since according to you, barely good enough for agriculture(!) and not too much more, really

    Quote Originally Posted by Agrippa
    Its a propaganda myth, based on what? Anti-Nord bias?
    Reality doesn't change, even if it doesn’t suit your particularly agenda. I already confronted you. And you have given one lousy answer; "you need an input for a good output " whatever that means

    Quote Originally Posted by Agrippa
    Furthermore Indoeuropeans influenced this cultures heavily, the base of Europe is Indoeuropean and the base of the Indoeuropeans was Nordoid and progressive.
    Perhaps in a romantic, germanic wet dream. No such thing in real life. Y chromosome analysis have clearly demonstrated the indo-europeanization to be a mainly cultural phenomenon. Don't have the data on mtdna, but im not really expecting you to tell me that those ultra progressive hunter gatherers were infact female. And even so, the kurgans were mainly cromagnid according schwidetzky.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agrippa
    First I didnt denied achievements of Alpinoid types, I even wrote that all Europid types are rather progressive at least with local and individual exceptions (compare with the Eastbaltids above), there are even quite progressive Alpinoids there en masse, they just reach peaks less often and the tendency of Alpinisation for itself is degenerative, not Alpinoids as such being degenerated or not being able to achieve great things, never said that.

    Napoleon though wasnt Alpinid, if you are a Dodona-reader you should know his pictures as well as those of his son, he wasnt Alpinid, he wasnt even short for his time, again you just repeating nonsense without any base.

    The French are quite mixed, never said that mixtures must be negative, but if its about progressive traits the social stratification is especially in France very clear. If you ever had the chance to compare you might be impressed by the clear dominance of progressive types in the political and scientific elite of the country.
    "I didnt denied achievements of Alpinoids." Apparently your response for all. But cold, hard reality is, if seen you talking in a disparagingly manner of so called non-progressive types, be it alpinids, borrebys, tydals or eastbaltids.

    Nothing nonsense - don't know what you try to achieve. You yourself on dodona said napoleon to be alpinid, just not a typical one.Which i agree with.

    and perhaps helpful, hereby you have your base, a description by Doctor Corvisart in 1802: "Napoleon was of short stature, about five feet two inches by French measure [5 feet 6 inches, English measure], and well built, though the bust was rather long. His head was big and the skull largely developed. His neck was short and his shoulders broad. His legs were well shaped, his feet were small and well formed. His hand, and he was rather proud of it, was delicate, and plump, with tapering fingers. His forehead was high and broad ... his nose was straight and well shaped."

    Besides his clear mediterranid influence, morphologically he gives a rather alpinid impression.



    Give him a more short, clumsily nose and he would approach the alpinid even more closely.

    Infact look at his (far) offspring



    Quote Originally Posted by Agrippa
    There are proofs in this threads, read them and then ask again.
    Talk is cheap, you've provided no evidence at all. Yes, well constructed and interesting posts. But lets be realistic, basically the proof shit. Recall the moment you claimed the elite forces to be progressive, I demonstrated that not to be the case. Or you telling; the nordid race suffered because of two world wars, but going with your logic, nordids would be mostly officers - that's required since apparently the are natural-born superhumans - so for the sake of convenience, you told officers to be more nordid and - like that's not enough - to die more than the average soldier, of course that's what we call crap from the highest level.

    I was just wondering, would you consider blondism in nordids to be infantile?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agrippa
    Sure, they get mesognathy and skull shapes like that because they are unhappy...furthermore body build can be considered a racial characteristic to a certain degree.
    Furthermore what does this have to do with progressive traits for itself? If they have a different head position, more often mesognathy with a negative chin and rather infantile proportions thats a fact which is not open to discussion and that are traits which are in clear contrast to progressive traits.
    Didn't get what i meant, or just pretending?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agrippa
    In fact Lundmans pictures are those which are least propagandistic, because they dont show the most attractive Nordids all the time. But if you like compare on Dodona this thread about the Swiss for comparing really average people, the result is the same though:
    http://www.dodonaforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1292
    clearly you were pretending

    Quote Originally Posted by Agrippa
    Balanced Cromagnid tendencies are progressive. Did I say something different? But that they really outnumber males in general, well, probably in the current fashion, though I doubt it...
    Whatever. Don't you get it? According to your own hierarchical pyramid, the classic nordid or corded type - whichever you'd chose to be the benchmark - should be the all time model, the all time athlete, scientist, soldier etc.. and needless to say, that's not the case.

    German literature and surprise, surprise the nordid germanic is the benchmark, big fucking suprise. Obviously one just can't take it seriously. Overall its laughable really, and clearly non-scientific. The basis obvious is a germanic, nationalistic, romantic and patriotic concept aka, the aryan ideal. And as a consequence, studies and discoveries are all made to fit the picture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agrippa
    Its a sensitive issue for many, consider that too and you should know that people are rather reluctant to accept some conclusions. However, the facts speak for itself.
    sure

    Quote Originally Posted by Agrippa
    That was done in various threads already, I have proven that most of them are very progressive by definition, by description most were leptomorphic too and the most successful leaders were Schizothymes. So what do you want to tell me or anybody else with that?
    That they were not all Nordid? True, but I never said that Nordids are the only progressive type, if you understood it that way read what I have written again. I just spoke of Nordid being the general benchmark and dominant form for Central-Eastern and especially Northern Europe, but that doesnt make progressive "exclusive" neither the physical nor psychic ones. We are always speaking about frequencies...
    If im right, you profoundly connect progressive with dolichocephalic, tall and a leptosomic body form - an amusing anecdote; you claimed once dolichocephalic people creating civilization worldwide, well not that you have any empirical evidence.. According to coon; greek and romans statues had distinctly brachycephalic skulls.

    I just want to say the following; there is nothing necessarily wrong with childlike features, burkhardt said it to be characteristics of men who have the gift for the highest capacity of thinking and imagination, especially the geniuses.

    And there is no such a thing as a progressive upper class and a infantile/primitive lower class.

    sorry for the late answer, i have other things on my mind

  9. #29
    Progressive Collectivist
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Agrippa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 31st, 2011 @ 10:22 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Asgard
    Gender
    Politics
    Progressive Collectivist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    6,968
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    11 Posts

    AW: Racially progressive tendencies in Homo sapiens

    Brachycephalization is only to a small degree associated with infantilization.
    True, especially for individuals, but on a racial level it depends even more on the exact kind of tendency, f.e. be it Dinarisation or Alpinisation or Baltisation.
    For the first it can be said that it has nothing to do with infantilisation, as I pointed out in various threads. And in general it depends. Its right to say that, but I never said anything else.

    borreby as type is interesting since according to you, barely good enough for agriculture(!) and not too much more, really
    Where did I say that? Brachycephaly with a shortened-broadened head is most likely just a cheaper form - if its about bones and energy - for having the same volume.

    No such thing in real life. Y chromosome analysis have clearly demonstrated the indo-europeanization to be a mainly cultural phenomenon. Don't have the data on mtdna, but im not really expecting you to tell me that those ultra progressive hunter gatherers were infact female. And even so, the kurgans were mainly cromagnid according schwidetzky.
    Yes, we had this thread, I said my opinion there. The Cromagnid type of the East was quite progressive and impressive anyway and for Central Europe we can see the Corded and more robust Mediterranid variants being dominant. In that time of maximal positive selective pressure we have an absolute dominance over widest areas - in all places which were mobile and had to stand stronger group selective pressure - we see the dominance of very progressive forms ranging from Cromagnid (Kurgan f.e., partly Northern Europe) to Nordoid (Corded and Northern European leptodolichomorphs) as well as more robust Mediterranid and Dinarid forms f.e. in South Eastern Europe. In such areas we see practically no deviating forms nor too much infantile ones, what can be mainly ascribed to the very high selective pressure on and biological niveau of the people of that time.

    I could write something longer about Eastern-Central and South-Eastern Europe which would make that absolutely clear, but its a lot of work.

    Concerning Napoleon: Look at his death mask...thats the most reliable source!

    Infact look at his (far) offspring
    He is a rather progressive Europid form, a good example for not really deviating and still quite progressive Alpinoid influence.

    the nordid race suffered because of two world wars, but going with your logic, nordids would be mostly officers - that's required since apparently the are natural-born superhumans - so for the sake of convenience, you told officers to be more nordid and - like that's not enough - to die more than the average soldier, of course that's what we call crap from the highest level.
    It depends on the exact region and way of selecting officers too, but I might add that progressive types being much more common among officers than among simple soldiers, which means in many parts of Europe a clear Nordid dominance, especially if comparing with the average! Just recently I saw that to be proven by a selection of Austrian special police forces, it was just amazing. They were not all textbook Nordic, but thats not required, progressive they were all.
    This means that in different regions different variants might dominate - f.e. in India Nordindids, in Spain Atlantomediterranids, in China Nordsinids and Nordsinid-Tungid individuals, but where Nordid is strong, Nordids will be better represented in elite forces and under officers than in the average population with a high probability.

    I was just wondering, would you consider blondism in nordids to be infantile?
    All new traits are a trade off!

    Didn't get what i meant, or just pretending?
    Just read it again, it was clear. Full facial Mesognathy not just based on dental-slight Alveolarprognathy has nothing to do with facial expression f.e. and is a clear primitive trait in Europids which are as a rule orthognathic or even balanced retrognathic.

    clearly you were pretending
    What?

    Whatever. Don't you get it? According to your own hierarchical pyramid, the classic nordid or corded type - whichever you'd chose to be the benchmark - should be the all time model, the all time athlete, scientist, soldier etc.. and needless to say, that's not the case.
    Correct would be: "The most time ..." and for a effective, future and goal oriented true community.

    Obviously one just can't take it seriously. Overall its laughable really, and clearly non-scientific. The basis obvious is a germanic, nationalistic, romantic and patriotic concept aka, the aryan ideal. And as a consequence, studies and discoveries are all made to fit the picture.
    Prove it. Furthermore we are speaking about objective facts - f.e. primitive traits can be clearly recognised and defined and nobody said, if speaking about honest scientists, that Nordids are the only more progressive form. Again, there might be many close to the Nordid level, but more variants are clearly below it.

    What you said is even more true for todays "politically correct" and ultra-egalitarian, ideologically motivated trials to deny basic racial differences and inequality of individuals and groups if its about achievements and potential.

    According to coon; greek and romans statues had distinctly brachycephalic skulls.
    Coon is not the bible, he made many heavy mistakes and concerning brachycephaly: Well, if you mean people like Aristoteles, well, they were very progressive, nothing primitive, nothing infantile and thats crucial as well as the fact that you can see plenty of Roman and Greek meso- to dolichocephalic individuals under the highest ranks. Progressive leptomorphic people dominate most areas especially in policy and military. Wrote about that too.

    And the founders of original civilisations were mostly dolichocephalic, simply because brachycephalic people were a small minority at that time and are rather the result of self-domestication or even degeneration in some areas, strong later specialisations in others.
    F.e. the original founders of Mesopotamian, Indus, Mediterranean and Egyptian civilisations were all dolichocephalic with a mesocephalic tendency. Same is true for the North of Europe even to this day - degeneration and infantilisation was weakest there, the negative, contraselective effects of civilisation worked there the shortest time.

    I just want to say the following; there is nothing necessarily wrong with childlike features, burkhardt said it to be characteristics of men who have the gift for the highest capacity of thinking and imagination, especially the geniuses.
    I assume he was speaking about Asthenics and sensitive schizothymic people. Well, they are on extreme end of a leptomorphic variation. But that again has nothing to do with infantilised races which are physically weaker. Neotenic tendencies, e.g. balanced paedomorphy which affects not the whole form is progressive anyway.

    And there is no such a thing as a progressive upper class and a infantile/primitive lower class.
    Really? About what region are you speaking? Most of the time is there is no such things, we are speaking of truly primitive societies without a clear social stratification or true elite any more. A good example would be the Maya-Istmid population after their cultural breakdown, after they lived as primitive farmers on a low level for quite a long time and reduction-infantilisation could work on them.
    Magna Europa est patria nostra
    STOP GATS! STOP LIBERALISM!

  10. #30
    Senior Member Imperator X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Last Online
    Saturday, April 4th, 2009 @ 02:47 AM
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Subrace
    Nordid/Atlantid.
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Massachusetts Massachusetts
    Location
    Boston
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Single, looking
    Occupation
    Looking
    Politics
    Constitutionalist
    Religion
    Hindu - Shakta
    Posts
    794
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Re: AW: Racially progressive tendencies in Homo sapiens

    Could someone look at my profile pic, classify me (North-Atlantid I'm almost certain) and then tell me what biological traits are associated? I have not explored this concept as it has largely been hush-hushed.
    SVMDEVSSVMCAESARSVMCAELVMETINFERNVM

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 13
    Last Post: Friday, January 19th, 2007, 09:40 PM
  2. Are Aborigines Homo Sapiens Sapiens?
    By OdinThor in forum Anthropogeny & Ethnogenesis
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: Monday, July 24th, 2006, 05:53 AM
  3. The Origin of Homo Sapiens?
    By Dombvi in forum Anthropogeny & Ethnogenesis
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Tuesday, July 4th, 2006, 07:33 AM
  4. How is Homo Sapiens Defined?
    By Dombvi in forum General Anthropology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Friday, March 10th, 2006, 04:42 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •