tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post4433763416462620438..comments2024-03-22T15:55:34.030-04:00Comments on Evo and Proud: Femmes claires, hommes foncés (English post)Peter Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04303172060029254340noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-56148005230182883092010-12-16T02:50:57.288-05:002010-12-16T02:50:57.288-05:00QUOTE"This way of seeing things persists in f...QUOTE"This way of seeing things persists in family names that once referred to gradations in pigmentation within a single population, like Leblanc, Lebrun, and Lenoir among the French, White, Brown, and Black among the English, or Weiss, Braun, and Schwartz among the Germans."<br /><br />Seems more likely to me that these names are referring to hair color rather than skin color.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02291622298961270279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-84993291440375398292010-12-09T10:17:03.214-05:002010-12-09T10:17:03.214-05:00ItsTheWooo2, it's a peer reviewed paper. You s...ItsTheWooo2, it's a peer reviewed paper. You seriously think it has flaws that an interested amateur like yourself could spot? Pleeze.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-34620265013009067132010-12-05T19:45:19.707-05:002010-12-05T19:45:19.707-05:00Sideways said...
Itsthewoo, the reason you...Sideways said...<br /><br /> Itsthewoo, the reason you're not seeing signs of facial hair on the lighter picture is that women do not generally have noticeable stubble. Get it yet?<br /><br />I'm really trying to stay unemotional here but the responses I"m getting are so obtuse and ridiculous.<br /><br />You are using CIRCULAR logic. These are the facts:<br />1) The picture is a combination of 22 men and women's faces.<br />2) The light picture is PHOTOSHOPPED to be lighter. THe dark picture is PHOTOSHOPPED to be darker. Presumably nothing else is changed but tinkering with the contrast.<br />3) This photoshopping ARTIFICIALLY accentuated masculine features in the dark picture and dminished feminine features in the light picture.<br />4) <b>this is not relevant in real life, as in real life light skinned people have more prominent masculine features as shadows and stubble are more noticable on lighter skin</b> Only in photoshopped pictures which are artificially lightened will the face appear more feminine afterward because you have also lightened the color of the stubble and the color of the shadows making them less prominent.<br /><br /><br />I don't see why you are having a hard time understanding this.<br /><br />Your circular logic of saing "the light picture doesn't have stubble because women don't have stubble, therefore light skinned people are feminine and this proves it"... it's proving nothing, and it is avoiding acknowledging the fact that the methods of research here are flawed (the photoshoped lightened picture looks significantly more feminine for reasons other than skin color, as the photoshoping has also washed out facial hair and shadows indicating boney prominences).<br /><br /><br />It would be like arguing an experiment to see if the sky is really red, used a camera which added a red tint to all the pictures... and I came a long and pointed out the results are not valid because the methods used are inappropriate... and you insisted "the results are valid because the sky is really red and so cameras will capture a red sky". You're just restating your original bias (that you think the sky is red / that you think women are white) without even ADDRESSING my point (the research method is flawed - the photoshoped picture has washed out beard stubble and shadows as well, which is not a factor in real life pale skinned people which actually have much more obvious stubble and more obvious shadows that show up better on slightly lighter skin tones than super dark ones)ItsTheWooohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12057537399918684119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-62319373277807911522010-12-05T17:13:58.948-05:002010-12-05T17:13:58.948-05:00Itsthewoo, the reason you're not seeing signs ...Itsthewoo, the reason you're not seeing signs of facial hair on the lighter picture is that women do not generally have noticeable stubble. Get it yet?Sidewaysnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-23900181112209324342010-12-05T15:26:23.810-05:002010-12-05T15:26:23.810-05:00Look, Peter, I'm sorry if you found what I sai...Look, Peter, I'm sorry if you found what I said to be offensive but it doesn't make it untrue.<br /><br />Why don't you get photoshop and superimpose the two images over each other like I said? IT IS OBVIOUS the dark face has features visible which the white face does not. This is exclusively a byproduct of bad photoshopping, it is not relevant to real life (i.e. a real life white skinned person you can see their beard stubble and you can see their eyebrows and you can see the hard ridges of the eye orbits/nasal bridge). The ONLY REASON the white face looks feminine is because of a piss poor photoshop job to artifricially lighten the face which washed out all testosterone driven features.<br /><br />It's like you *so badly* want this idea to be true that you are completely willing to ingore big red flags that your "evidence" has problems.<br /><br /><br /><br />Tod - so basically waht you are saying is that if you use photoshop to clearly make a picture more masculine (by exaggerating facial hair and the depth of boney prominences), then it is okay to attribute that difference to SKIN COLOR????<br /><br />LOL<br /><br />And if anyone has poor reading comprehension, it's you. The author meant that the contrast between dark lips and pale skin creates femininity (which i don't disagree with) however he did NOT mean to imply that his crappy research methods ended up making the dark face look masculine for reasons other than the gradient difference between the lips and the skin (the crappy photoshop job accentuated facial hair and boney prominences, which were washed out by the artificial lightening). THIS IS NOT A FACTOR IN REAL LIFE. In real life, facial hair and boney prominences are actually much more visible on white skin,only in photoshop (not the real world) is an artificially lightened face automatically given sexual reassignment. In the real world, lighter skin accentuates bone structures and facial hair and other masculine cues.<br />WOmen may prefer darker skin for other reasons, all the same, as slightly darker skin is a sign of high testosterone. Dark skin itself is NOT a sign of high testosterone, neither is white skin a sign of estrogen. You people are confusing ethnicity with sexual markers. There is a big difference between a woman with very black skin and a man with very white skin (1) women do not prefer very dark skin and men do not prefer very white skin (2) so I really don't see the point of constantly conflating ethnicity with sexual dimorphism.ItsTheWooohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12057537399918684119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-72325920592449314932010-12-01T14:20:42.758-05:002010-12-01T14:20:42.758-05:00ItsTheWooo2 obviously didn't bother actually ...ItsTheWooo2 obviously didn't bother actually reading this text.<br /> <b>Averaged faces of 22 women and 22 men (White American subjects with no makeup). Female faces are lighter-skinned than male faces, while showing more contrast between facial skin and lips/eyes (see research by Richard Russell).<br /></b><br />He assumed the photos were being claimed to be an identical picture that had been digitally altered only with different skin tones which made an observer perceive it as male or female. As he has a good enough eye for detail to see they were not he proceeded to made a fool of himself.<br /><br />I'll own up - I thought the same and didn't bother to read it properly either and made the same mistake (except I didn't realize the photos were actually unalike different because I don't have the same faith in my eye for detail).<br /><br />And to make it worse that was after implying in my earlier comment that I understood all about the hard science research findings that have gone into the new book. ( Even though in fact I didn't). <br /><br />Confession is good for the soul.Todnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-46524679212694996542010-12-01T12:01:14.848-05:002010-12-01T12:01:14.848-05:00Tod,
I wasn't trying to play safe by not disc...Tod,<br /><br />I wasn't trying to play safe by not discussing the evolution of European skin color in my book. It's really a separate question.<br /><br />Its the Wooo2,<br /><br />Those two pics are composite images of real-life men and women. There was no photoshopping, no 'manipulation,' and no 'fraud.' The pictures were taken under controlled conditions, using subjects with no makeup.<br /><br />Yes, there are differences in lip size, face shape, and eye socket depth between the two pics. That is hardly evidence of manipulation. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but men and women differ in facial morphology.<br /><br />I am familiar with Richard Russell's research, and I can assure you that he is a man of integrity with a long record of research work and publications from MIT and elsewhere.<br /><br />On a final note, I don't normally get angry, but your accusations of 'fraud' make me sick.<br /><br />Shame on you! Go find yourself a rock to crawl under.Peter Frostnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-42726789915292241452010-11-30T01:42:41.535-05:002010-11-30T01:42:41.535-05:00I would point out those pix are deceptive as the l...I would point out those pix are deceptive as the lighter complexioned face has the beard stubble eliminated via the higher contrast. It also appears as if the facial features are softer and feminized because the dark cast of the strong nasal bridge and eye orbits are eliminated by the high contrast. The high contrast also makes the eye brows appear higher by thinning them out (as the stray hairs are eliminated by high contrast). All ina ll the high contrast does a lot more to feminize the face other than lighten the skin color - you have lost facial hair (both around the mouth and above the eyes) and you have lost visual cues as to the shape of the bone structures (the one with the deeper contrast has a pronounced nasal bridge and deep eye socket near the nose which are important testosterone cues).<br /><br />I am not arguing whether or not light skin is a feminine gender/sex cue - I believe it is - however those pix only look so different because the high contrast is washing out important testosterone cues (facial hair stubble and strong facial features of nasal bridge/eye orbit/lower set brows appear higher etc).<br /><br />Women often take pictures on high contrast for this reason - it washes out imperfections and all you are left with is a floating pair of eyes and a mouth which look beautiful of course (and hard features/large noses/ skin blemishes are washed out). <br /><br />I would also argue that the lips on the left side are SLIGHTLY fuller, and this does not appear to be an optical illusion. The images have been manipulated in more ways than contrast. If you superimpose the dark face over the light face it is beyond apparent that this face has been manipulated to be more feminine (the upper lip plumps out very imperceptibly at the middle sides).<br /><br />If you superimpose the dark face over the light face and play with the opacity it becomes OBVIOUS the main reason the light face looks more feminine is because high contrast washes out testosterone cues. In real life light skinned people this would not be a factor as shading and luminosity are unaffected by skin color (that is to say, people with light skin will have shadows cast by hard testosterone-treated facial features, it is ONLY in photoshop where the skin has been artificially lightened or darkened will we see an unnatural exaggeration or elimination of these features).<br /><br /><br />I agree skin color is one (minor) gender / sex cue ... but fraudulent reserach like this is not going to help the case. It is obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of photoshop or art why the left face appears more feminine and it has VERY LITTLE to do with skin color. Although, someone who is unfamiliar with art (i am an artist) or photoshop might be fooled.ItsTheWooohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12057537399918684119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-63015415180412066942010-11-29T16:51:09.194-05:002010-11-29T16:51:09.194-05:00It's pretty conservative in the sense of leavi...It's pretty conservative in the sense of leaving out much of your hypothesis on the origin of white skin. It seems progress is going to be agonizingly slow.Todnoreply@blogger.com