9 out of 10 incels.is users
J
w
"A Swedish study based on 124 skulls from the 500 years preceding the seventeenth century found that the medieval skulls had somewhat smaller teeth and brain cases but larger jaws and wider dental arches than those of a modern population. 4 Other trends that have been reported include a reduction in palatal width between the Romano-British period and the nineteenth century 5, 6 and reductions in bi-zygomatic and maxillary widths between the twelfth and nineteenth centuries"
also the uralic people absolutely did exist all the way back during neolithic period, or at least people related to them, do you not know who the tianyun cluster or the botai people were lmao, stop acting all smug you anime pfp weeb shit, holecen period, sure. but that argument does not work as the hominids who lived during that era looked conventionally like apes you buffoon
what? no no no, facial robuscity=chiseled jaws, pronounced robust manillas and strong wide cheeks, thats what i meant and on average, these ancient europeans ABSOLUTELY had that, henry cavill would be considered a ltn back then you dumb fuck
"A Swedish study based on 124 skulls from the 500 years preceding the seventeenth century found that the medieval skulls had somewhat smaller teeth and brain cases but larger jaws and wider dental arches than those of a modern population. 4 Other trends that have been reported include a reduction in palatal width between the Romano-British period and the nineteenth century 5, 6 and reductions in bi-zygomatic and maxillary widths between the twelfth and nineteenth centuries"
also the uralic people absolutely did exist all the way back during neolithic period, or at least people related to them, do you not know who the tianyun cluster or the botai people were lmao, stop acting all smug you anime pfp weeb shit, holecen period, sure. but that argument does not work as the hominids who lived during that era looked conventionally like apes you buffoon
Last edited:
You realize the robusticity of the facial bones shouldn't be conflated with the shape of the bones and facial proportions/face structure right?
You're mixing up two different things. How thick and strongly built their facial bones is tangential to whatever angles and ratios their bones were oriented at. Otherwise Neanderthals wouldn't be robust under your harebrained definition because they lack projecting chins and chiseled jaws despite having more thickly constructed faces and cranial vaults than humans. You don't need to look like one morphotype (UP European) to have thickly deposited bones on your facial bones. That's not how it works and it perplexes me it took you weeks to respond and come up with this inane retarded misinterpretation.
That still doesn't cover measuring the thickness of the bones and their deposition instead of measuring the distance between one point and another on a single bone. Which is what I've been stressing was the subject I was talking about this whole time. Are you actually illiterate? Absolute incompetence.
Jfl at this reductive stupidity to shift the goalposts
Last edited:
J
oh yeah, its pretty much proven that they (the european hunter gatherers and later people like iron age crowds in northern europe especially) on average DID have strongly profiled, chiseled jaws and robust manillas and projecting chins weather you like that or not lol, the study i showed you isnt just about measuring the bigonial fucking width of jaws that you are ambiguously refering towards since you dont really know much, you absolute dumb fuck, theres a thing called bicondylar width of the jaw that you do not know about since you just try to larp as a top tier anthropologists LMAO, the bicondylar width is what measures the actual jaws robuscity, the wider it is the STRONGER the jaws structure would be, essentially more chiseled while bigonial width only measures the fucking width of the mandible foremen, essentially, lets use someone as an example, jon eric hexum vs brock lesnar, jon eric hexum has a really wide bicondylar width while brock has a fucking wide bigonial width you dumb fuck, if that make sense, you do not wanna die on this hill, there's practically should be NO debate on the topic of weather european hunter gatherers or early societies that essentially had extremely hardy lives and food weren't chiseled jawed and cheeked on average LMAO, i have multiple books that you can never get your filthy hands on, i have crania norvegica volume 1-2 measuring like what uuuuuh...4 thousand ancient skulls and conducting craniometric averages that result in coinciding with my fact and iron age man on denmark and prehistoric man in denmark with yet another 2-3 thousand skulls LMAOOOO, the reason why it took me so long to respond was also since im simply uninterested in this dumbass sheningans on the internet arguing with a clueless guy that doesnt know what hes talking about is simply going off of his own ego just because he probably took one anthropology class and went to university hahahah, its absolutely mind boggling that you even thought up a way to use mental gymnastics to debunk the study i linked in the context of weather they were chiseled jawed or not on average, there ABSOLUTELY is a correlation between wider palates/jaws and the positioning, angle or structure of the jaw blah blah whatever bullshit you are trying to say just to sound smart lol, anyways, since how dumb you are, ill make sure to promptly reply because damn you are really retarded, you trying to debunk something like this that ive been studying for fucking years longer than you ever had is insane, bring it on dude
J
oh, also, the neanderthal example is quite moot, yes they are absolutely MUCH MORE ROBUST on average, only thing they lack is chins, facial robusicty definitely correlates with whether they will have chiseled jaws or not, same goes for extremity bones like femur, humerus and tibia etc, the thicker the bone mineral density the bigger boned they will be, its literally common sense kek
It will depend on the type of woman, I would say that having the classic chad face never fails, neotenics have a zone of failure
But I think this degeneration is more caused on the maternal sideAsians were once a lot more robust than they are now but over countless generations of sexual selection for more gracile facial traits they became ricecels.
Back in the Neolithic, they would've competed with Caucasians in terms of facial robusticity and now they're bugmen. Another case of female choice being detrimental to the health and looks of future generations. This is why you don't give foids full control over their mate selection and they shouldn't be allowed to choose who gets to reproduce or not. Mongoloids became what they are because of foids creating a selective pressure for breeding more limp wristed twinks into this world. The maladaptive graincel diets didn't help the matter either.
@Cayden Zhang
Men look for very feminine women and their children end up being affected
This on repeat, have you ever stopped to think if your father* (fucking translator) had reproduced with a more robust woman? Our parents, besides being ugly, also reproduced with weak women, now we are ugly and weak
Masculine women are not even a fetish, very very few men have a preference for it
Last edited:
Jfl this brain damaged dumbass got himself banned while I was in the process of making my reply. Oh well, I'll post it anyways. His retardation and stupidity was too much for the mods to handle and they couldn't tolerate him anymore I suppose.
Bigonial jaw width doesn't measure the thickness and bone mass of the individual bones of the mandible. If you knew anything about physical anthropology and a single thing about anatomy, you would've figured this out by now and I wouldn't have to expose your ineptitude and spoonfeed you basic information anyone with background knowledge in the field would know.
If you actually had a pedigree like you said you did, you'd know the correct metric and measurement is median mandibular thickness of the cortical bone.
You reference a study where the original isn't even open access or on any online database (I checked on scihub and a myriad of other archive sites) yet you act your headcanon is confirmed and the author's definition of whatever they're measuring is the same as what you define bone thickness as.
You are completely delusional and out of touch with reality judging by how you act on baseless unfounded speculation.
This self proclaimed expert doesn't know a study exists where Asians got directly compared to Paleolithic Europeans in regards to the comparative anatomy assessing their level of robusticity relative to each other. They either score similar robusticity index values or Paleolithic Asian cranial fossil remains actually plot in a quadrant of the graph that excludes European remains because their craniometrics ended up not robust enough to qualify plotting in that space. I know you can't avoid misinterpreting everything, be it a sentence or a graph, so I spelled it out for you. How will you deflect criticism now you lobomite? Looks like you'll have to cope even harder.
Ironic you call me a larper when the only study you cite is the same one you kept parroting to others months ago. Nice Projection.
My Paleolithic samples are a better datapoint for comparison than medieval Swedes since that was what this conversation was originally about. So did this never pop up in your books?
And you posted your Swedish study while arguing for the same pants on head retarded talking points in other discussions from earlier threads.
I've seen your post history.
Modern Humans only have chins because of their faces shrinking and becoming less thickly boned with less bone deposition resulting in thinner bones of the skull due to reabsorption of bone matter during youth. They developed the mental protuberance because they lost bone mass and thus became less robust than Neanderthals in their cranial osteology. In other words, we only have chins because the rest of the skull became more gracile overall and you're out here claiming a feature born of a trend in decreasing robustness is one of the be all and end alls of whatever traits determine if a face is robust or not.
You've proven nothing all except the fact that you're a mentally invalid imbecile who has no idea on what he's talking about. It would serve you well to stop pretending like you do on any other forum you decide to decrease the average IQ of by several standard deviations.
Difference between facial growth of Neanderthals and modern humans
A new study describes for the first time the developmental processes that differentiate Neanderthal facial skeletons from those of modern humans.
www.sciencedaily.com
Why we have chins
Why are modern humans the only species with chins? UI researchers say it's not due to mechanical forces, such as chewing, but may lie in our evolution: As our faces became smaller, it exposed the bony prominence at the lowest part of our heads. Results in the Journal of Anatomy.
Loading…
www.researchgate.net
Last edited:
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
