Racially Progressive Tendencies in Homo Sapiens

[Agrippa]

Racially progressive tendencies in a race are typically modern sapiens features. In this context I mean neomorphic, new features, which are both balanced, versatile, under as much conditions as possible advantageous and efficient. The new feature must be generally advantageous or at least not disadvantageous, neutral, if considering as much factors as possible, to be called progressive. Usually this tendencies are on line with the general trends of Hominisation, f.e. decrease of prognathy, prominence of the upper jaw, changes in the position of the foramen magnum and the form and position of the parietal bone etc.

Knußmann said that different races have different progressive features. For the Negrids he mentioned the full lips in the Grzimek Enzyklopädie.
The dynamic of progressive types (Europids and Mongolids, with certain types being more progressive than the average of the race) replacing in prehistoric times more primitive variants was mentioned by v. Eickstedt (1963), Lundman (1952).

Rough translation:

"The other, even more progressive main race, the white race...", from Lundman, Umriß der Rassenkunde in historischer Zeit, 1952, S. 51.

"Very clear is the connection of races to the ontogenetic development: There are races, which retain the more childlike (paedomorphen) habitus (f.e. Palaemongolids, img 308 - look at the pictures posted in the phy. anthro. section from Knußmann), and such, which are more typical adult formed - or even overreaching (f.e. Nilotids, img 304).

"The protuberance of the mucous membrane (lips) of Negrids is a phylogenetically progressive, whereas the strong prognathy is an archaic (primitive) feature."

Knußmann (see below) S. 407.

"Highly specialised organisms or organs are being designated as phylogenetically progressive. Phylogenetic primitivity is the retaining of original, undifferentiated features. (very rough The (theoretical of primitivity) advantage is the potential for further specialisation in more directions..."

- means: Primitives can develop, Progressives already developed. If there new development if advantageous, there form is it. Now my point is not everything new is progressive, insofar I use it like Eickstedt and Lundman, because only advantageous and versatile features are progressive, too one sided overspecialised (took further potential).

"Original ("ancestral") features are also called plesiomorphies, specialised "derived" as apomorphies.

Knußmann, Vergleichende Biologie des Menschen, 2nd edition 1996, S. 268-269.

There are various threads in which I described what progressive should mean.
Some images which show progressive-neomorphic evolutionary trends during hominisation.
First the general developments of the skull:


2nd the development of the lower jaw - positive chin:



Deviating tendencies, a metrical comparison, tropical primitives (Weddoid: Malid) compared with progressive Europids (Indid: Nordindid):



Extreme paedomorphy of the skull and body compared with a normal development of progressive mature leptomorphic Europids:



Compare with Lundmans scheme of body racial body types and this thread about leptomorphic body form:

Leptomorphic body from an evolutionary perspective (Various links in this thread)

About prognathy I made a thread on Stirpes, attachments are lost unfortunately: Racial Prognathy - protruding facial profile

A theory behind nasal prominency


So progressive features are, from the perspective of late Hominisation and more advanced sapiens forms if compared with the more archaic, primitive strata features like orthognathy, positive chin, full lips, higher rooted nose, narrower nose, etc.

Lighter pigmentation could be considered progressive as well, but is more dependent on the climatic conditions, though lighter, but not too depigmented skin is advantageous because of a higher grade of attractiveness (sexual attractiveness can be considered generally advantageous and therefore progressive if not too disadvantageous because of other factors) and while light skin can be protected and light skinned individuals can survive in an environment which has a high UV concentration, dark skinned individuals can, without modern technology, not that easily compensate their darker skin, their UV-filter in an extreme environment with low UV concentrations. But as I said, generally speaking pigmentation is not generally progressive or not but rather directly adaptive.

Balanced Neoteny, which is progressive, means that more juvenile to paedomorphic feature are being retained, but without any reduction, loss of differentiation, potential and generally mature appearance of males in particular. So a balanced result of Neotenisation for both sexes without general reduction and loss of potential - thats of course progressive. It doesnt only lead to a more attractive appearance, but could also lead to new potential developments if looking at the braincase - so this was a general trend in Hominisation = progressive. Associated with this process are various developments (f.e. reduction of prognathy, lower face "pushed" under the braincase, headhole "migrating", development of a positive chin etc.) which point to a general progressive, propulsive character. Generally all new traits which are not generally disadvantageous, dont reduce the versatile potential, can be considered being progressive, neomorphic.


For racially progressive examples of modern mankind see here:

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.p...204#post348204

[Janus]

Really interesting thread but I can slightly disagree with the following statement.

but not too depigmented skin is advantageous because of a higher grade of attractiveness

Atleast in Asia,mainly speaking of Korea,Japan and China it's rather so that that less pigmented people are considered as attractive.While here in Europe women want to a more dark tan in and even try to manipulate their appearance with using cosmetica or going to a solarium it's quite the opposit there and woman use cosmetica to get a more pale skin.

[Agrippa]

Really interesting thread but I can slightly disagree with the following statement.

At least in Asia,mainly speaking of Korea,Japan and China it's rather so that that less pigmented people are considered as attractive.While here in Europe women want to a more dark tan in and even try to manipulate their appearance with using cosmetica or going to a solarium it's quite the opposite there and woman use cosmetics to get a more pale skin.

Pigmentation is more clearly associated with climatic zones and therefore primarily adaptive, so neither really progressive nor primitive, but as I stated, light pigmentation might be from the generalist perspective and if its about attractiveness advantageous.

Pigmentation is finally just one feature out of others and in some cultures its overestimated, but generally speaking extremely pigmented, very dark skin is seldomly preferred from a global perspective - whereas the taste and cultural trends might differ in the spectrum from very light to medium dark - with extreme depigmentation being seen as rather unattractive in certain cultures as well, just heard about different perceptions in pre-colonial Mogul India f.e., in which "light" was definitely preferred but extreme depigmentation - to which they were simply not used to as well, not.

And for Europe there is a clear difference between fashion trends females want to follow and the male (or opposite) perception of attractiveness of the opposite sex. A "healthy tan" which has certain associations in our current society as had pale skin one century ago, is not really the same as strong pigmentation.

[Janus]

On that one I can agree
And I will appreciate it if you post your article and comments from there here.

[Agrippa]

More illustrations for the basic evolutionary pattern during Hominisation and a Homo erectus skull for comparison:

[Agrippa]

A longer skull with projecting occiput or a balanced broader skull can be quite closer to full balance, especially if being orthognathic and if the foramen magnum is put rather forward, thats the progressive condition for the skull position.

Just compare, everything from Knussmann (1996):
Body posture and body balance point of a chimp and sapiens:


Baboon-sapiens comparison if its about the skull balance. The weight for keeping the baboon skull up is much bigger:


Foramen magnum shift and change on the base of the skull and cranium capacity:


Compare again this very progressive and balanced retrognathic Nordid male:


With this Australids:


One of the most primitive skulls of modern sapiens:

The Pintubi skull (1800 AD.) is an Australoid skull with very archaic dimensions.

Here it is compared with a Europid skull


Compared with an H. Erectus.

Affinities
Although we are describing differences that might seem to approach speciation, we must remember that these are differences in grade only.
Affinities suggested by these descriptions are all Homo sapiens, to be sure. Let no misinterpretation be made here.
There is, however, enough variance from the norm to suggest some carry-over morphology from earlier or archaic anscestry. A continuity or link to the past, as it were.
The link might be inferred to the influence of robust hominids of late Pleistocene Asia. The obvious candidate for this backward probe would be the aforementioned Homo erectus Soloensis of Ngandong, Java.
In a previous investigation, I was able to inspect casts of 2 calvarias - a 20,000 year old Australian aborigine (WLH-50) and an Indonesian (Ngandong, Java) Homo erectus Soloensis and was amazed at their nearly identical proportions.

A picture is worth a thousand...
This same Javan Ngandong sample will be shown in the photo section for comparison to Pintubi-1.
The photographs are the meat of this essay. They are the evidence that allow the reader to make his/her comparisons and judgements.

Source: http://canovanograms.tripod.com/pintubi1/

This skull is a perfect example for primitive traits and they made a comparison with a progressive skull on this site too, whats really nice to show the difference between primitive and progressive traits.

[Theudiskaz]

Would it be safe to say that the features called "progressive" are essentially the features that humans consider "beautiful" (especially among whites, where they seem to be most pronounced)?

The classical standard of beauty is best exmplified in the Mediterraneans and Nordics proper, and are these not the most progressive subraces? Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Waarnemer]

Would it be safe to say that the features called "progressive" are essentially the features that humans consider "beautiful" (especially among whites, where they seem to be most pronounced)?
The classical standard of beauty is best exmplified in the Mediterraneans and Nordics proper, and are these not the most progressive subraces? Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong well at least imo, agrippa most likely will tell you otherwise. Of course on a worldscale between the very primitive and progressive, you would be right, but imo its incorrect in the europid population. Men in general will have a preference for girls with paedomorphic infantile alpinid/baltid characteristics, and certainly in comparison with for example a "progressive" dinarid girl.

[Theudiskaz]

You are wrong well at least imo, agrippa most likely will tell you otherwise. Of course on a worldscale between the very primitive and progressive, you would be right, but imo its incorrect in the europid population. Men in general will have a preference for girls with paedomorphic infantile alpinid/baltid characteristics, and certainly in comparison with for example a "progressive" dinarid girl.

I understand what you mean. Women with paedomorphic features elicit a protective and affectionate response in men. I am talking more about the harmonious and proportioned look of Greek statuary which until recently was the standard for beauty throughout Europe. I mean cold aesthetics not sexual attractiveness.

[Agrippa]

Progressive people must not be attractive and vice versa. Furthermore there are different ways to attractiveness, the progressive way is the way through high investment combined with high performance, the paedomorphic way is the one which is cheap and concentrated on saving.

The main difference on that is the distinction between the three tendencies in modern humans, traits can be primitive (archemorphic), infantile (paedomorphic) or progressive (neomorphic), the last one is the most versatile and highest evolved.

In fact its rather about features which are more this or that, but for a type its the combination which leads to a judgement, f.e. 10 progressive, 2 primitive and 3 infantile traits: Progressive type.

The retention of infantile-juvenile traits can be progressive if being balanced, if it doesnt lead to total reduction and infantilisation: F.e. if it just affects the forehead and cranium primarily together with just certain facial traits, whereas the whole head-face and especially the body is still juvenile-mature.

That's partly the case with Nordid or Mediterranid vs. primitive types like Australid f.e.

This thread is recommended on that too:

Comparing archemorphic, paedomorphic and neomorphic types

On "Progressiveness" - Active and Passive Adaptation


Progressive variants are those which are versatile and highly differentiated, generally rather new and advantageous, so primitive traits being lost without serious losses of the generic potential the more primitive type had. With a balanced Neoteny, without total infantilisation. Examples for very progressive types would be Nordid, Atlantomediterranid, Dinarid, Iranid, Nordsinid, Silvid etc. Europids are in general rather progressive if its about the normal main types, if not counting rather local, even individual extreme forms. Mongolids are as a rule not really primitive with the exception of mixed forms on borders, the Mongolid core is rather progressive but with a strong tendency for Borealisation and varying grades of infantilisation (least Indianid Silvids probably which are even "Dinariomorphic" after Lundman).

Infantile variants are those which are ontogenetically retarded or better earlier determined, so they dont grow to a juvenile-mature status and keep not just on the cranium and some facial traits alone, though thats being included, but as a whole many child-like (paedomorphic) traits. Examples would be various Palaemongolid (Palaungid in particular) forms.

Primitive variants are those which are phylogenetically retarded, they didnt evolved on as fast as the progressive variants and are still quite close to archaic sapiens strata of the past. The best example is Australid.

By the way, I dont agree with the notion of paedomorphic females being generally preferred. It depends on the male though. Males usually prefer in females certain paedomorphic traits, but not infantile types as such necessarily. F.e. the conflict could come up from certain facial features and general 'cuteness' with overall head- and body shape. The infantile variants have, if at all, only for the first an advantage, but almost never for the later.

Many actresses, models, both fashion and for magazines, combine traits, but usually show just balanced Neoteny combined with other progressive traits and no real infantilism. The difference between more balanced individuals of both tendencies can be characterised as the difference between elegance and refinment vs. cuteness.
"Sexy" is usually something in between for most males if they really have the choice, but more on the "elegant side" usually (Nordid, Mediterranid f.e.), or with the third, the mesomorphic mature option, which is progressive too - with a certain definition of the body and very feminine attributes (more typical for Cromagnoid beauties probably).

However, the success of infantile characteristics in some groups can be easy explained as the cheap way to attract men for females and at the same time reducing the whole size, performance and potential of a group because of the lack of sufficient energy, nutrition and other selection than that happening inside of the local group and habitat (weak group selection, predominance of one sided selective pressures!). Thats obviously more often the case in unfavourable areas and areas of retreat.

Kristanna Loken is progressive, no strong generalised infantilism, just some stronger balanced Neotenic tendencies:






Petra Nemcova is progressive without any infantilism at all, just some balanced Neoteny and a very balanced and harmonious look:




Michelle Hunziker has even lower Neoteny, more Cromagnoid influenced, but both very progressive and harmonious:




Christina Ricci on the other hand is rather infantile for an European, obviously in a rather balanced way for that category:







I'd say most European males would prefer the first, the progressive category, but they might think of the later being "the 2nd alternative" at least and preferring it especially if thinking not being able to get the first. Compare with European losers which try to find their South East Asian bride - oftentimes not even the most attractive ones compared to the local average - in their later decades...

Very infantile women seem to be easier to control, more innocent, less problematic and finally not that much of a challenge for many males I'd guess - that together with their protective appeal - might explain the success of the "cheaper strategy" in some areas even beyond the direct need for saving.

Both might be preferred before extreme and unbalanced mature tendencies obviously, but thats rather an individual problem of already rather masculinised women which occur, in a certain percentage, in progressive types but are not representative.

Progressive types are characterised by a high standard in both sexes, not just one. Every racial trait must be positive for both sexes and if not at least neutral, because of the low sexual dimorphism in humans for being progressive. F.e. an infantilised type will be generally weaker and will have a generally lower performance, both females and males being affected.

Primitive traits seem to be less problematic in the sexual selection for males and infantile ones for females, though both are overall subopitimal in comparison to progressive ones obviously.

That partly explains the slight advantage of Negrid males in comparison to the disadvantage of Negrid females and the opposite for Mongolide males and females if its about an interracial sexual competition. Since, from a progressive standard, the first deviate at least on average in a primitive, the later in an infantile direction (with some huge exceptions, especially if speaking about South East Asians obviously).