Interesting theory I have on assimilation and marrying outside

[mrzurnaci]

So I did some thinking like I usually do and I was thinking about how Assyrians in the USA marry outside, not just our people, but outside our Middle Eastern, Christian based culture as well and I've thought up this reason as to why this is happening.

Is there an increase of Assyrians marrying outside the ethnicity and culture because Assyrians are too spread out ?

I've noticed that Assyrians, for some reason, do not concentrate into homogeneous areas within one country and usually spread out.

my theory is that, because Assyrians are so spread out from each other, they're less likely to meet another Assyrian or Middle Eastern as a significant other and as a result, simply choose a significant other that is "closer" to them.

What do you guys think, I need all the opinions I can get from this!

 

[Kelba]

I am dating an outside girl and that is definitely part of it, I don't know many Assyrians where I live currently. I do know some Assyrian girls, but we are complete mismatches in terms of attraction and personality. I wish I could date an Assyrian, but I never met one where we had mutual interest in each other.

 

[member 326969 Global]

I think that this does happen a lot. However, it is the Assyrians who do not sever their identity from their children, who will be the "saawe/saave" of tomorrow. Regardless of whom I marry, I will guarantee the Assyrianisation of the household and my children, equipping them with the mentality to do the same for their children. I would rather marry a non-Assyrian who is actually enthusiastic about Assyrian culture/nationalism over any otherwise similar Assyrian woman who isn't.

I think our religion is a big factor in this. Christians are generally flexible and will either not attend Church or be happy to attend the service of another (local) denomination which will mean that in Western countries of Christian heritage, Assyrians become more likely to blend into the local population or disperse. It seems that the more secular Assyrians tend to live further away from the Assyrian community (like my parents, though they happily identify with the Assyrian community).

When you compare this to the trends of Islamic people, this is quite the opposite, Islamic immigrants seem more likely to stick close to similar Islamic people.


Another factor is linguistic. Many people coming from overseas look for the best place to live with that has people that speak a language they already understand. All Assyrians can understand a language other than Assyrian. Most Assyrians coming from the Middle East normally speak Arabic (especially), Farsi, Turkish or Kurdish. Therefore, they can get by by living in communities with those speakers, encouraging further dispersal of the Assyrian population.

The advantage of being a minority is that people who are less concerned with academia, language, history, identity etc, are the first people to dissolve into the masses. This has a positive eugenic effect on our people. For example, I hazard a guess that those who are genetically predisposed to being better at understanding linguistics, are more likely to preserve their language. In turn, those who preserve their language are more likely to preserve their identity.

 

[Cascade]

Assyrians seem to be too spread out in America for some reason. I never knew that we also had them in Turlock, Sacramento, San Jose and other Californian cities. I thought we were mostly in Chicago, Detroit and Phoenix. Not sure why they did this, especially in the US? Thankfully in Australia, we're mostly in Sydney and Melbourne. There are barely any Assyrians in Perth and Brisbane.

According to a "gossip" I heard, Iranian Assyrians have a some sort of an aversion towards Iraqi Assyrians. They avoided Chicago and Detroit (which have a lot of Iraqis) and settled in such cities listed above. That's why, if you haven't noticed, these Californian cities have a lot of Iranian Assyrians.

 

[Assyrian Nationalist]

There are barely any Assyrians Brisbane.

I estimate 30 Assyrians in Brisbane, lol.


Whereas there are 14 000 Assyrians in Sydney and 11 000 in Melbourne.

 

[Cascade]

I estimate 30 Assyrians in Brisbane, lol.


Whereas there are 14 000 Assyrians in Sydney and 11 000 in Melbourne.

Seriously, let the 11K from Melbourne come to Sydney already, so there can be 25,000 Assyrians here. Let us reach other minorities such as the Lebanese.

 

[Joe25]

So I did some thinking like I usually do and I was thinking about how Assyrians in the USA marry outside, not just our people, but outside our Middle Eastern, Christians based culture as well and I've thought up this reason as to why this is happening.

Is there an increase of Assyrians marrying outside the ethnicity and culture because Assyrians are too spread out ?

I've noticed that Assyrians, for some reason, do not concentrate into homogeneous areas within one country and usually spread out.

my theory is that, because Assyrians are so spread out from each other, they're less likely to meet another Assyrian or Middle Eastern as a significant other and as a result, simply choose a significant other that is "closer" to them.

What do you guys think, I need all the opinions I can get from this!

That would likely be the main reason for young Assyrian men to marry non-Assyrians. The girls will simply meet someone at get-togethers through the family(the men too but I find mixing to be less likely with girls) which happen in the cities that have largest concentration of Assyrians. They marry the men and will move in with them, sometimes moving all the way to another country.

The second biggest problem imo is the zionist media of the west brainwashing the younger generation, and that goes for pretty much every group of people in the west. Show business promotes race-mixing non-stop and this is clearly affecting some Assyrians too. I've said before that I don't mind rare cases with people who are atleast racially and culturally closer to us but there should be clear limitations there.

 

[member 326969 Global]

The second biggest problem imo is the zionist media of the west brainwashing the younger generation, and that goes for pretty much every group of people in the west. Show business promotes race-mixing non-stop and this is clearly affecting some Assyrians too. I've said before that I don't mind rare cases with people who are atleast racially and culturally closer to us but there should be clear limitations there.

I really think these allusions to conspiracy theories of the media and Zionism are very misleading. It's all conjecture. By far, what causes the media to propagate these ideas is not the mere intention of any propagation, but purely the personal/business interest of getting money. Media programs with liberal values get more viewers and more money. The media sells what consumers want. Capitalism naturally drives all these forces. If you have evidence to suggest that there is some dark Zionist agenda, i'd like to see it (probably not in this thread though).

Race mixing is fine ...depending who it is. We ought to select people who are both genetically fit and compatible with ourselves. There's a lot of variation within any race of people however, each race is distinct -some genes are ubiquitous in a particular race, and completely absent in another. A knowledge of races serves as a tool for being able to make educated guesses as to what the (biological) nature of a person is. Just as skin pigmentation evolved, so does intelligence, personality, height, longevity etc. The problem is that people will accept it when it comes to appearances, even when it comes to the propensity to develop particular diseases,  but so few accept that intelligence could have evolved differently for different groups of people (especially those in isolation for extended periods of time).

Although races are genetic clusters (extended families), the great variation between individuals within a race usually requires us to examine the specific traits of the individuals.

 

[Joe25]

I really think these allusions to conspiracy theories of the media and Zionism are very misleading. It's all conjecture. By far, what causes the media to propagate these ideas is not the intention of any propagation, but purely the personal/business interest of getting money. Media programs with liberal values get more viewers and more money. The media sells what consumers want. Capitalism naturally drives all these forces. If you have evidence to suggest that there is some dark Zionist agenda, i'd like to see it (probably not in this thread though).

Race mixing is fine ...depending who it is. We ought to select people who are both genetically fit and compatible with ourselves. There's a lot of variation within any race of people however, each race is distinct -some genes are ubiquitous in a particular race, and completely absent in another. A knowledge of races serves as a tool for being able to make educated guesses as to what the (biological) nature of a person is. Just as skin pigmentation evolved, so does intelligence, personality, height, longevity etc. The problem is that people will accept it when it comes to appearances, even when it comes to the propensity to develop particular diseases,  but so few accept that intelligence could have evolved differently for different groups of people (especially those in isolation for extended periods of time).

Although races are genetic clusters (extended families), the great variation between individuals within a race usually requires us to examine the specific traits of the individuals.

Lets put aside the intentions issue for another time because it's besides the point, but we all know they promote race mixing and the kind that goes far beyond what I mentioned such as black going with white. As in caucasians not even going with another caucasian. Since I'm probably the least PC person here I'll just be clear right away, I'd never agree with an Assyrian marrying an African or East-Asian person(just two obvious examples) no matter how much Hollywood tells them 'race doesn't matter' 'only love matters' etc. And it has nothing to do with hate or racism.

I think we all agree that cultural maintenance and survival is a priority for us, well IMO our genetic penotype is just as important to maintain as say language etc. It's part of what links us to our ancestors and who we are as a people. If a large number of us start breeding with very distant type of people it's another way of losing identity. I'll want my children to look like me and my ancestors, and we are living in a world where this line of thinking is becoming more and more scrutinized when it's only a very natural and logical way of thinking.

 

[Kelba]

According to a "gossip" I heard, Iranian Assyrians have a some sort of an aversion towards Iraqi Assyrians.

This might ruffle some feathers on this forum, but you heard something common. Iranian Assyrians often times have a superiority complex over Iraqi Assyrians. Another common saying is female Iranian-Assyrians tend to be a lot more controlling in their marriages compared to Iraqis.

Anyway that's just based on common gossip\stereotype. It really comes down to the individual

 

[member 326969 Global]

Lets put aside the intentions issue for another time because it's besides the point, but we all know they promote race mixing and the kind that goes far beyond what I mentioned such as black going with white. As in caucasians not even going with another caucasian. Since I'm probably the least PC person here I'll just be clear right away, I'd never agree with an Assyrian marrying an African or East-Asian person(just two obvious examples) no matter how much Hollywood tells them 'race doesn't matter' 'only love matters' etc. And it has nothing to do with hate or racism.

I think we all agree that cultural maintenance and survival is a priority for us, well IMO our genetic penotype is just as important to maintain as say language etc. It's part of what links us to our ancestors and who we are as a people. If a large number of us start breeding with very distant type of people it's another way of losing identity. I'll want my children to look like me and my ancestors, and we are living in a world where this line of thinking is becoming more and more scrutinized when it's only a very natural and logical way of thinking.

I agree with all of this except, I don't care to much about trying to resemble our ancestors, I'd rather we just look as good as can be. I really think we should stick to marrying other genetically fit Caucasoids too to keep our genetic identity uniform and rich. If there are any mixed race Assyrians or non-Assyrians who wish to be a part of the Assyrian community, I'm happy to accept them on the basis of their identity, but I would advise them to marry Caucasoids so as to mitigate further disuniformity of the gene pool.

This might ruffle some feathers on this forum, but you heard something common. Iranian Assyrians often times have a superiority complex over Iraqi Assyrians. That an female Iranian-Assyrians tend to be a lot more controlling in their marriages compared to Iraqis.

Anyway that's just based on common gossip\stereotype. It really comes down to the individual

I haven't heard of this before. I'm completely an Assyrian of Iraq yet i find that as of the last 100 years or so, the small amount of Assyrians who come from Iran (Urmians namely), have contributed the most relative to their size. At least in terms of cultural aspects like language or music.

I really hate for people to divide the nation into sects, but they should serve as an example to others.

 

[mrzurnaci]

This might ruffle some feathers on this forum, but you heard something common. Iranian Assyrians often times have a superiority complex over Iraqi Assyrians. Another common saying is female Iranian-Assyrians tend to be a lot more controlling in their marriages compared to Iraqis.

Anyway that's just based on common gossip\stereotype. It really comes down to the individual

and any Assyrian that thinks they're better than another Assyrian because they came from a different place should suffer from chai overdose.

 

[Cascade]

This might ruffle some feathers on this forum, but you heard something common. Iranian Assyrians often times have a superiority complex over Iraqi Assyrians. Another common saying is female Iranian-Assyrians tend to be a lot more controlling in their marriages compared to Iraqis.

Anyway that's just based on common gossip\stereotype. It really comes down to the individual

I personally have noticed this myself. They hate the fact that we like Arabic music, but then they'd be spending hours listening to Iranian music. Lol.

What is their so-called "superiority complex" about anyway? Religion? Culture? I mean, least Arabs have much more Christians than Iranians, who are virtually Muslim. And, not to mention, most Arab countries allow women to dress however they want (besides Saudi). Iran suppresses women to the core.

If anything, shouldn't we have a superiority complex?  :mrgreen:

FYI, we have an Iranian-Assyrian based club here in Sydney (Ashur Club). We visit it often and it's my favourite club tbh, but Iranian-Assyrians rarely visit other Assyrian clubs (Nineveh Club and Cultural Club), which are more Iraqi-Assyrian. I mean, Lol?

 

[ins001]

The problem is that people will accept it when it comes to appearances, even when it comes to the propensity to develop particular diseases,  but so few accept that intelligence could have evolved differently for different groups of people (especially those in isolation for extended periods of time).

That's very controversial. Where do you think our group falls?

 

[Assyrian Nationalist]

I personally have noticed this myself. They hate the fact that we like Arabic music, but then they'd be spending hours listening to Iranian music. Lol.

What is their so-called "superiority complex" about anyway? Religion? Culture? I mean, least Arabs have much more Christians than Iranians, who are virtually Muslim. And, not to mention, most Arab countries allow women to dress however they want (besides Saudi). Iran suppresses women to the core.

If anything, shouldn't we have a superiority complex?  :mrgreen:

FYI, we have an Iranian-Assyrian based club here in Sydney (Ashur Club). We visit it often and it's my favourite club tbh, but Iranian-Assyrians rarely visit other Assyrian clubs (Nineveh Club and Cultural Club), which are more Iraqi-Assyrian. I mean, Lol?

Oh wow, that's a bit sad.

I heard from a Kurdish guy that it's the same in the diaspora to Kurds, Turkey's Kurds and Iraq's Kurds sometimes distant themselves in Europe.

 

[member 326969 Global]

That's very controversial. Where do you think our group falls?

As for our genetic standing as apposed to other Caucasoids, there is not much I can say due to the obvious lack of investigation in the racial sciences, let alone a specific examination of the Assyrian people. Also, the broader Caucasoid group has been distinct from non-Caucasoids for much longer than what subgroups within the Caucasoids group, such as Assyrians, have been distinct from each other.

As for a broader view of were we fall in the world population, there is much to be said and much to be discovered of this topic. Despite our diverse origins, all of our ancestors were Caucasoids. Caucasoids distinctively have a bit of Neanderthal ancestry. It is probably that mixed ancestry along with other factors (mostly geography) that has made Caucasoids notably intelligent and have unique bodies. Of course, all of this has been guided by natural selection.

I don't know if Assyrians have ever been specifically tested for IQ. I find that Assyrians raised in the West are more intelligent than those raised in the Middle East. I also find that Assyrians raised in the West are taller and structured broader (skeletally) than those in the homeland. I think this has to do with nutrition. Education and sports may also have some influence here. I believe this is true of other Middle Eastern people I've observed.

 

[Cascade]

I don't know if Assyrians have ever been specifically tested for IQ. I find that Assyrians raised in the West are more intelligent than those raised in the Middle East. I also find that Assyrians raised in the West are taller and structured broader (skeletally) than those in the homeland. I think this has to do with nutrition. Education and sports may also have some influence here. I believe this is true of other Middle Eastern people I've observed.

What you said is 100% nutrition and lifestyle based. In the west, we eat a lot, go to gym (workout) and/or play sports. This can give us a bigger frame, whether it's fat or muscle.

Having broad or narrow shoulders has nothing to do with your skeleton. It's the muscle and/or fat concentration which gives the illusion that a person is big or small. There's no such thing as thin or thick-boned.

It's not that those in the west are taller, it's just that this generation is getting taller for some reason. There are many Assyrians raised in the west over 30 years ago who aren't even that tall. Your height has nothing to do with your nutrition. It's all genetic here. Sure, maybe a very good nutrition can add 4cm to your genetically "planned" height, but don't expect anything more than that.

 

[member 326969 Global]

Prepare for some warmhearted disagreement

What you said is 100% nutrition and lifestyle based.

To explain the different trends among Assyrians raised in the West as apposed to Assyrians raised in the Middle East, yes, that's exactly what I meant. Since I'm not trying to suggest there's any notable genetic distinction between Assyrians raised in the Middle East and Assyrians raised in the West, I'm just focusing on nutrition and lifestyle.

In the west, we eat a lot, go to gym (workout) and/or play sports. This can give us a bigger frame, whether it's fat or muscle.

I agree.

Having broad or narrow shoulders has nothing to do with your skeleton.

Whaaaaat?? Neon! pay attention to our anatomy!

It's the muscle and/or fat concentration which gives the illusion that a person is big or small.

Muscle and fat can do that but that doesn't negate the role of bone size.

There's no such thing as thin or thick-boned.

Oh yes there is! Have you ever met any people? Bone thickness and length varies for everyone. Visit a library then go visit a gym and you'll see what I mean.

It's not that those in the west are taller, it's just that this generation is getting taller for some reason.

Which generation? This Assyrian generation raised in the West seem clearly taller than their counterparts in the Middle East.

There are many Assyrians raised in the west over 30 years ago who aren't even that tall.

Firstly, I find that on average, Assyrians raised in the West are tall. Secondly, it is not simply about how tall Assyrians are, it is about how much taller (more tall) Assyrians raised in the West are than Assyrians raised in the Middle East.

Your height has nothing to do with your nutrition.

Your having a laugh, Neon. Then what do you reckon we grow from, sawma u slouta?

It's all genetic here.

Clearly that's not the case. The average height has soared recently in any countries that have improved their diets.

Sure, maybe a very good nutrition can add 4cm to your genetically "planned" height, but don't expect anything more than that.

My point is that whatever the amount is, it shows.

For example, in Europe in the last 150 years alone, the average height has jumped by about 11 centimeters. It is not due to some incredible Darwinian force favoring height  -it's the mass consumption of food, sudden ubiquity of previously out of season foods, milkman, supermarket, icebox, refrigerator, microwave etc.

Whatever this genetically "planned" height is, it was clearly nowhere near being actualised by Brits 150 years ago. Research shows that our genes are constantly reacting to our environment and often behave opportunistically as well. In light of all the information out there, the argument should be about how much and to what extent nutrition affects height; it shouldn't be about whether or not nutrition affects height.

 

[Cascade]

Whaaaaat?? Neon! pay attention to our anatomy!

It depends on what you mean by "anatomy". Because it includes skeleton, fat and muscle. Yes, a muscular guy has a bigger anatomy, if you mean muscle-wise. Doesn't mean that his skeleton is bigger than a guy of the same height. If they both decompose, you wouldn't tell that much a difference. Even if there is, the difference will be so minuscule.

Muscle and fat can do that but that doesn't negate the role of bone size.

Bone size doesn't differ that dramatically between humans anyway, otherwise human skeletons would look a lot different from each other. And we have yet to see such occurrences.

Oh yes there is! Have you ever met any people? Bone thickness and length varies for everyone. Visit a library then go visit a gym and you'll see what I mean.

Aha, you say "bone length". Yes, there are those who have long bones. We call them tall people.

Those "thick-boned" people I see in the library and whatnot are made up of fat and/or muscle. I don't see broad or narrow skeletons. And I think science will agree with me here.

Fat and muscle distribution can differ between people, though. Some have chubby stomachs, but rather skinny arms and legs ("skinnyfat"). Others have fat chests and back, but relatively mild stomachs. This also gives the illusion that the latter folks are "big boned", when it's just that they are more susceptible to fat in different regions than the skinnyfats.

Which generation? This Assyrian generation raised in the West seem clearly taller than their counterparts in the Middle East.

I see more and more young Assyrians in the Middle East today who are taller than their parents before them. We are getting taller, no matter what part of the world we're from. This is due to hormones added in foods nowadays and such (in which you probably know). Not because we are eating a lot of food, as our parents tell us ("khul raba qat yarkhet"), which is pretty much pseudoscience. And if that was the case then obese people will be tall as heck. Funny even, fat people usually tend to be short.

Your having a laugh, Neon. Then what do you reckon we grow from, sawma u slouta?

I know, man, I'm such a joker! That's why those poor, starving folks in Africa are so damn short. 

Clearly that's not the case. The average height has soared recently in any countries that have improved their diets.

Yes, because of the hormones in our foods. Our foods weren't so processed 100 years ago.

My point is that whatever the amount is, it shows.

For example, in Europe in the last 150 years alone, the average height has jumped by about 11 centimeters. It is not due to some incredible Darwinian force favoring height  -it's the mass consumption of food, sudden ubiquity of previously out of season foods, milkman, supermarket, icebox, refrigerator, microwave etc.

Whatever this genetically "planned" height is, it was clearly nowhere near being actualised by Brits 150 years ago. Research shows that our genes are constantly reacting to our environment and often behave opportunistically as well. In light of all the information out there, the argument should be about how much and to what extent nutrition affects height; it shouldn't be about whether or not nutrition affects height.

That's true. It isn't really Darwinian per se. Well, in a way, it is. The environment and what we eat affects us (that's basic Darwinian evolution). For the umpteenth time, it's because of the hormones found in food nowadays. But your height is always genetic. If you ate a hormone-rich diet in the west and you come from a short family, you would hardly be 5cm taller than your genetically prearranged height. Can your children be taller as generations go by? Of course. I'm with you on that. And that's how evolution goes. It's gradual. It did take us a century to be taller.

 

[member 326969 Global]

It depends on what you mean by "anatomy". Because it includes skeleton, fat and muscle. Yes, a muscular guy has a bigger anatomy, if you mean muscle-wise. Doesn't mean that his skeleton is bigger than a guy of the same height. If they both decompose, you wouldn't tell that much a difference. Even if there is, the difference will be so minuscule.

This issue has nothing to do with what I mean by anatomy. We both know what anatomy is, we both know our anatomy includes our skeletons. The reason I said "pay attention" to it is because you said shoulder breadth has nothing to do with bones -which is totally wrong.

Bone size doesn't differ that dramatically between humans anyway, otherwise human skeletons would look a lot different from each other. And we have yet to see such occurrences.

The whole point of my comment that we're talking about, revolves around differences to do with bone size, intelligence etc. That you think the differences in bone size are overrated is the epitome of subjectivity and therefore irrelevant.  :razz:

For anyone who is interested in the variation of intelligence, height and bone size in human populations (especially Assyrians), that is who my comment was for.

Those "thick-boned" people I see in the library and whatnot are made up of fat and/or muscle. I don't see broad or narrow skeletons. And I think science will agree with me here.

I didn't ask you to look at the fat or muscle of people in the library. I asked that you compare the thickness of the bones of those in the library to the thickness of the bones of those in the gym. Look at their wrists :bangin:

You said "there's no such thing as thin or thick-boned", which is obviously wrong, science will not help you here. Bones very obviously vary in thickness. If you think that it's not much, that's merely an opinion.  The human eye can easily spot the difference.

Fat and muscle distribution can differ between people, though. Some have chubby stomachs, but rather skinny arms and legs ("skinnyfat"). Others have fat chests and back, but relatively mild stomachs. This also gives the illusion that the latter folks are "big boned", when it's just that they are more susceptible to fat in different regions than the skinnyfats.

Yes, however, I am not talking about fat, there are people with thick bones and others with thin bones.

I see more and more young Assyrians in the Middle East today who are taller than their parents before them. We are getting taller, no matter what part of the world we're from. This is due to hormones added in foods nowadays and such (in which you probably know). Not because we are eating a lot of food, as our parents tell us ("khul raba qat yarkhet"), which is pretty much pseudoscience. And if that was the case then obese people will be tall as heck. Funny even, fat people usually tend to be short.

I am comparing the height of Assyrians raised in the Middle East to the height of Assyrians raised in the West.

What your saying here is back to front. That hormones in food affects height is much more closer to being pseudoscientific than the fact that nutrition affects height. The question is not whether or not nutrition affects height, it is simply a fact that one can't grow without nutrition. The question is about to what extent does nutrition influence height. Human height has steadily been increasing fast for hundreds of years most likely due to improved nutrition.

Quantity of food is not synonymous with nutrition. The fact that nutrition affects height doesn't mean that people will be tall if they eat. What you're arguing is like saying  "Islam doesn't encourage terrorism because I have a peaceful Muslim friend". What I am arguing is like saying "belief in Islam influences your propensity to commit terrorism".

I know, man, I'm such a joker! That's why those poor, starving folks in Africa are so damn short. 

I can't believe you think tall Africans grow without nutrition. Once again, quantity of food doesn't equate with nutrition. Also, nutrition doesn't solely determine height. There are changes in nutrition that will result in how tall one would have otherwise been.

To make this comment have any relevance to my initial hypothesis, you need to measure the difference in height between a particular African people divided into two virtually identical groups where one group has been raised with a Western diet and the other has been raised with a 2nd or 3rd world based diet (similar to that of Iraq, Syria etc).

Yes, because of the hormones in our foods. Our foods weren't so processed 100 years ago.

Added hormones might be a factor. However, no part of the body can grow without nutrition. Also, height has been soaring for more than 150 years in the UK alone. In any case, added hormones are part of the food we eat, they therefore fall within the definition of nutrition.

That's true. It isn't really Darwinian per se. Well, in a way, it is. The environment and what we eat affects us (that's basic Darwinian evolution). For the umpteenth time, it's because of the hormones found in food nowadays. But your height is always genetic. If you ate a hormone-rich diet in the west and you come from a short family, you would hardly be 5cm taller than your genetically prearranged height. Can your children be taller as generations go by? Of course. I'm with you on that. And that's how evolution goes. It's gradual. It did take us a century to be taller.

With all due (or undue) respect, I think you don't understand how evolution works or you have some incredibly bizarre perceptive on British history.  :victory:

When I talk about Darwinism, I'm talking about natural selection which is the only thing "Darwinism" means. Natural selection refers to the idea that certain organisms reproduce and increase/preserve their progeny more successfully than others, making their genes more likely to become prevalent. Organisms that reproduce and increase/preserve their progeny less successfully, decrease the prevalence of their genes. Therefore, genes that confer advantages/disadvantages in reproduction or the increase/preservation of progeny directly determine their own fate as generations arise over the course of time.

The 11 cm jump in height is not due to Darwinian forces. A jump that big in the last 150 years in the UK has nothing more than an iota to do with natural selection.

 

[Cascade]

This issue has nothing to do with what I mean by anatomy. We both know what anatomy is, we both know our anatomy includes our skeletons. The reason I said "pay attention" to it is because you said shoulder breadth has nothing to do with bones -which is totally wrong.

Yes, the anatomy includes our skeleton, but it isn't exclusive to skeletons. And that isn't the point here.

Your shoulder breadth has to do with muscle or fat mass. Your bones do not magically get broader or narrower if you workout or become lazy, respectively. The average human is not born to have big bones or small bones. End of.

The whole point of my comment that we're talking about, revolves around differences to do with bone size, intelligence etc. That you think the differences in bone size are overrated is the epitome of subjectivity and therefore irrelevant.  :razz:

Who's talking about what's overrated and what is not? I am talking science here. And it plainly disagrees with "thick-bones".

I didn't ask you to look at the fat or muscle of people in the library. I asked that you compare the thickness of the bones of those in the library to the thickness of the bones of those in the gym. Look at their wrists :bangin:

Dude, are you punking me? Haha...Gym folks would obviously have bigger wrists because of their muscle makeup. Let's face it, they workout all the time. They eat a lot. Do you really expect them to have skinny wrists? Even a kindergartner would know that.

People with smaller wrists (the "small-boned" folks) barely have a BMI over 22. Newsflash, they are skinny. If they gain weight, their wrists would too (shocking, isn't it?). Can't believe that you fail to see or understand this very basic thing.  :blink:

You said "there's no such thing as thin or thick-boned", which is obviously wrong, science will not help you here. Bones very obviously vary in thickness. If you think that it's not much, that's merely an opinion.  The human eye can easily spot the difference.

Look, there are anomalies in humans. People are born with four legs for Christ's sake, but that doesn't mean that it's a regular occurrence. Same thing with big-bones. It happens (look up gigantism and maybe some 2 meter tall wrestlers), but it's a rarity. Odds are, the average fat or robust person you see in the streets has bones similar to any other person.

Yes, however, I am not talking about fat, there are people with thick bones and others with thin bones.

For the hell of it, do you consider yourself to be "thick-boned" or "thin boned"?

Also, when you wrap your wrist with your middle finger and thumb, do they meet, overlap or barely touch? They say that this indicates whether you're small, medium or large framed. I'm actually ambivalent towards this method, though.

What your saying here is back to front. That hormones in food affects height is much more closer to being pseudoscientific than the fact that nutrition affects height. The question is not whether or not nutrition affects height, it is simply a fact that one can't grow without nutrition. The question is about to what extent does nutrition influence height. Human height has steadily been increasing fast for hundreds of years most likely due to improved nutrition.

Sorry, but that's totally false. If one can't grow without nutrition then all of the people in starving countries would be midgets. For the last time, we're only growing taller because of hormones (I commend you for acknowledging that btw, but you should really make it the quintessential factor).

Look, I will not buy the whole nutrition thing and how it affects height. It's such an archaic idea - Something that your grandparents would tell you. I've grown out of it in my teen years when I realized that it was a farce (in which it is). Your height is genetic. It just is. I know, this sounds harsh and hopeless, but you can't do anything about it.

I can't believe you think tall Africans grow without nutrition. Once again, quantity of food doesn't equate with nutrition. Also, nutrition doesn't solely determine height. There are changes in nutrition that will result in how tall one would have otherwise been.

Africans are tall because of genetics and evolution. They live in a bushy grassland (and I'm only talking about those in Africa). They're evolved to be tall so they can spot predators (that's also one of the reasons why we started to walk upright).

And who said that they don't eat anything? They eat in little quantities, but they still manage to be relatively tall. Their nutrition is still poor though, and you know this. So how did they magically be rather tall? Obviously, evolution plays a role here.

With all due (or undue) respect, I think you don't understand how evolution works or you have some incredibly bizarre perceptive on British history.  :victory:

When I talk about Darwinism, I'm talking about natural selection which is the only thing "Darwinism" means. Natural selection refers to the idea that certain organisms reproduce and increase/preserve their progeny more successfully than others, making their genes more likely to become prevalent. Organisms that reproduce and increase/preserve their progeny less successfully, decrease the prevalence of their genes. Therefore, genes that confer advantages/disadvantages in reproduction or the increase/preservation of progeny directly determine their own fate as generations arise over the course of time.

The 11 cm jump in height is not due to Darwinian forces. A jump that big in the last 150 years in the UK has nothing more than an iota to do with natural selection.

Seriously? So what's happening to humans and how the environment is affecting us is not Darwinism or evolution to you? Lol, good joke.

Nobody was talking about natural selection, btw. So don't call me ignorant on things that I didn't say. -_-

 

[Crocodile Bani]

It isn't just the fact that Assyrians are spread out from each other (though I live 3.5 hours by plane to the nearest Assyrian).  Growing up in Westernised countries, people are encouraged to think for themselves.  Rather than being a pre-programmed person (political party chosen by parents, religion chosen by parents, bank chosen by parents and that stays with you forever), people make up their own minds about stuff.  With this comes diversion from what is a "typical Assyrian".  Speaking for myself, I grew up not liking much about Assyrian parties, dances, etc, but any mention of Brazilians and South Americans and I was instantly alert.  Later in life with me living in Japan, I developed an appreciation for the Japanese (though there are elements of their culture that is too extreme to be practical). 

Despite being proud of my Assyrian heritage (my Assyrian flags have been seen at 2 world cups and one club world cup), I am not a "typical Assyrian male".  Typical Assyrian females are not attracted to me and I am not attracted to them.  I have changed my city or country of residence 8 times in the last 17 years and the typical Assyrian female would not have tolerated the number of changes.  I am not afraid to express an opinion that may go against the majority but the typical Assyrian female (and even male) finds difficult to do, even when they have a differing opinion in their hearts.  I have visited Brazil twice, Germany, Spain, Holland, South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, Bali, South Africa, Morocco, Lesotho and Swaziland.  Locations where the typical Assyrian female would not want to visit and would draw opposition to visiting.  I like the fact that I now live far from family and their interference but the typical Assyrian female loves being close to her family and doesn't mind their interference ("influence" according to the typical Assyrian female). 

Therefore for practical reasons, Assyrian girls are not an option for me.  This does not mean that if an Assyrian female came into my life and saw eye to with me, that I would reject her just for being Assyrian.  That would be narrow-minded and pointless.  I know of a few Assyrian couples who got together outside of Assyrian circles and have very happy marriages. 

At the end of the day, it all depends on the individual and what they need and what they are attracted to and who they find that with.  Unlike in the Middle east (where marrying outside of the Assyrian people is a no no), we have more choices in the west and many people are exercising those options.

 

[member 326969 Global]

Neon, there is so much I think you've gotten completely wrong and ignored but I don't see a reason for me to add anything new because there's is a lot of what your saying that has completely derailed from the points I addressed. You've made it sound like we are discussing something other than what I brought up. However, I understand you see things differently so I'll comment in order to clarify (for you and possibly others) why I said what I did, and why much of what you said is nonsense.

Much of what your talking about has nothing to do with the points I've made, they only discuss the same general topic.
For example, pay attention to the first quote in each of our replies (such as yours that is below).

Yes, the anatomy includes our skeleton, but it isn't exclusive to skeletons. And that isn't the point here.

Your shoulder breadth has to do with muscle or fat mass. Your bones do not magically get broader or narrower if you workout or become lazy, respectively. The average human is not born to have big bones or small bones. End of.

We are not arguing about the definition of anatomy. I know that the anatomy includes more than our skeleton, but that is totally irrelevant to my point. As with much of what you said, the fact that you are making all these arguments, misrepresents my position.

I asked that you "pay attention to our anatomy" to specifically consider the role the skeleton has to play. That same role it has to play includes the breadth of the shoulders. Regarding this specific point, I never mentioned anything about what makes shoulders broader or narrower; I simply said, "Neon! pay attention to our anatomy!" in response to you saying, "Having broad or narrow shoulders has nothing to do with your skeleton". Extra variables are irrelevant. Either the skeleton does or does not have to do with shoulder breadth -by not addressing that, it becomes a red herring or sophistry at best. This pattern resonates throughout your post.


I know I'm repeating myself now, but the below is what I said in contradiction with your position.

1) Shoulder breadth does have to do with your skeleton.
2) Bones do vary in thickness, this is not abnormal.
3) Nutrition does affect height. Nutrition is necessary to grow/repair.
4) Other factors such as genetics affect height. Therefore a taller population in one place with poor nutrition may be taller than they otherwise would have been if they were a different population living in the same circumstances.

In regards to the African comment specifically, I tried to be clear as to why that's a terrible point. I tried doing it in layman's terms but I will try approaching this from a different angle now. Aside from the fact that there are countless very short Africans (due to malnutrition), not quite apart from the fact that many die due to lack of nutrition, you can't measure a dependent variable whilst using several independent variables. This relates back to point 4 which is above.

Who's talking about what's overrated and what is not? I am talking science here. And it plainly disagrees with "thick-bones".
Dude, are you punking me? Haha...Gym folks would obviously have bigger wrists because of their muscle makeup. Let's face it, they workout all the time. They eat a lot. Do you really expect them to have skinny wrists? Even a kindergartner would know that.

Science does not disagree with the variation of the thickness of bones. I used wrists as an example becasue there are many cases of thick wrist bones seemingly protruding from the skin of wrists, that indicate a clear difference in thickness of bones.

People with smaller wrists (the "small-boned" folks) barely have a BMI over 22. Newsflash, they are skinny. If they gain weight, their wrists would too (shocking, isn't it?). Can't believe that you fail to see or understand this very basic thing.  :blink:

I refer you back to the point about scientific experiments regarding only having one independent variable.

Look, there are anomalies in humans. People are born with four legs for Christ's sake, but that doesn't mean that it's a regular occurrence. Same thing with big-bones. It happens (look up gigantism and maybe some 2 meter tall wrestlers), but it's a rarity. Odds are, the average fat or robust person you see in the streets has bones similar to any other person.

The variation in bone thickness in humans is not an anomaly, it's very common just as height variation is common. The only major difference is that the thickness of bones is less obvious than the lengths of bones. Nonetheless, they're both obvious. I suspect the problem in your reasoning is like saying "dogs come in different sizes but caterpillars don't". I think that you think that becasue it doesn't seem obvious to you, it isn't real.

Sorry, but that's totally false. If one can't grow without nutrition then all of the people in starving countries would be midgets. For the last time, we're only growing taller because of hormones (I commend you for acknowledging that btw, but you should really make it the quintessential factor).

I don't think you understand what nutrition is.

Nutrition:
"the process of providing or obtaining the food necessary for health and growth."
"food or nourishment."
"the branch of science that deals with nutrients and nutrition, particularly in humans."

If you don't eat anymore, you won't grow and you will die.

Look, I will not buy the whole nutrition thing and how it affects height. It's such an archaic idea - Something that your grandparents would tell you. I've grown out of it in my teen years when I realized that it was a farce (in which it is). Your height is genetic. It just is. I know, this sounds harsh and hopeless, but you can't do anything about it.
Africans are tall because of genetics and evolution. They live in a bushy grassland (and I'm only talking about those in Africa). They're evolved to be tall so they can spot predators (that's also one of the reasons why we started to walk upright).

So you think I've fallen for an old wives tale that my grandparents have probably taught me? What a ridiculous point.

Once again, I know that genes and evolution are a factor in height -I've explicitly pointed that out and consistently considered it throughout this discussion. Aside from all the pontification, by arguing about this, you're misrepresenting my position again.

Btw, the average height in African nations is rather short, this website goes through a few: http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/height-chart.shtml

And who said that they don't eat anything? They eat in little quantities, but they still manage to be relatively tall. Their nutrition is still poor though, and you know this. So how did they magically be rather tall? Obviously, evolution plays a role here.

Once again, I refer you back to the point about scientific experiments regarding only having one independent variable.

Seriously? So what's happening to humans and how the environment is affecting us is not Darwinism or evolution to you? Lol, good joke.

Darwinism = "the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin." It does not mean "what's happening to humans and how the environment is affecting us"

If by saying that, you mean to bring up something to be considered when discussing Darwinism, then I've absolutely done that. I said that: "The 11 cm jump in height is not due to Darwinian forces. A jump that big in the last 150 years in the UK has nothing more than an iota to do with natural selection." I said that fully considering what happens to humans and their environment. I also said that in full respect of Darwinism as a staunch Darwinist myself.

Nobody was talking about natural selection, btw. So don't call me ignorant on things that I didn't say. -_-

We were talking about natural selection.


I said:

For example, in Europe in the last 150 years alone, the average height has jumped by about 11 centimeters. It is not due to some incredible Darwinian force favoring height  -it's the mass consumption of food, sudden ubiquity of previously out of season foods, milkman, supermarket, icebox, refrigerator, microwave etc.

Whatever this genetically "planned" height is, it was clearly nowhere near being actualised by Brits 150 years ago. Research shows that our genes are constantly reacting to our environment and often behave opportunistically as well. In light of all the information out there, the argument should be about how much and to what extent nutrition affects height; it shouldn't be about whether or not nutrition affects height.

Then you replied to the above by saying:

That's true. It isn't really Darwinian per se. Well, in a way, it is. The environment and what we eat affects us (that's basic Darwinian evolution). For the umpteenth time, it's because of the hormones found in food nowadays. But your height is always genetic. If you ate a hormone-rich diet in the west and you come from a short family, you would hardly be 5cm taller than your genetically prearranged height. Can your children be taller as generations go by? Of course. I'm with you on that. And that's how evolution goes. It's gradual. It did take us a century to be taller.

I then responded to your above response by saying:

With all due (or undue) respect, I think you don't understand how evolution works or you have some incredibly bizarre perceptive on British history.  :victory:

When I talk about Darwinism, I'm talking about natural selection which is the only thing "Darwinism" means. Natural selection refers to the idea that certain organisms reproduce and increase/preserve their progeny more successfully than others, making their genes more likely to become prevalent. Organisms that reproduce and increase/preserve their progeny less successfully, decrease the prevalence of their genes. Therefore, genes that confer advantages/disadvantages in reproduction or the increase/preservation of progeny directly determine their own fate as generations arise over the course of time.

The 11 cm jump in height is not due to Darwinian forces. A jump that big in the last 150 years in the UK has nothing more than an iota to do with natural selection.

 

[Cascade]

Neon, there is so much I think you've gotten completely wrong and ignored but I don't see a reason for me to add anything new because there's is a lot of what your saying that has completely derailed from the points I addressed. You've made it sound like we are discussing something other than what I brought up. However, I understand you see things differently so I'll comment in order to clarify (for you and possibly others) why I said what I did, and why much of what you said is nonsense.

No need for the arrogance. It's your problem that you couldn't comprehend what I was trying to say.

Much of what your talking about has nothing to do with the points I've made, they only discuss the same general topic.
For example, pay attention to the first quote in each of our replies (such as yours that is below).
We are not arguing about the definition of anatomy. I know that the anatomy includes more than our skeleton, but that is totally irrelevant to my point. As with much of what you said, the fact that you are making all these arguments, misrepresents my position.

I asked that you "pay attention to our anatomy" to specifically consider the role the skeleton has to play. That same role it has to play includes the breadth of the shoulders. Regarding this specific point, I never mentioned anything about what makes shoulders broader or narrower; I simply said, "Neon! pay attention to our anatomy!" in response to you saying, "Having broad or narrow shoulders has nothing to do with your skeleton". Extra variables are irrelevant. Either the skeleton does or does not have to do with shoulder breadth -by not addressing that, it becomes a red herring or sophistry at best. This pattern resonates throughout your post.

You're extremely pedantic. I've never seen such a nitpicker. But whatever helps you in "winning" the argument.

Of course what I'm saying is "irrelevant" to your point. You just intentionally don't want understand my side of the argument, that fat and muscles are involved in your shoulder breadth. So it's convenient to ditch them on your part.

I know I'm repeating myself now, but the below is what I said in contradiction with your position.

1) Shoulder breadth does have to do with your skeleton.
2) Bones do vary in thickness, this is not abnormal.
3) Nutrition does affect height. Nutrition is necessary to grow/repair.
4) Other factors such as genetics affect height. Therefore a taller population in one place with poor nutrition may be taller than they otherwise would have been if they were a different population living in the same circumstances.

1. Disagree.
2. Let's disagree again, or else we'll nauseatingly repeat ourselves.
3. As above.
4. I actually agree with that. But the affects would still be gradual. You might see the "impact" in your great grandchildren.

Science does not disagree with the variation of the thickness of bones. I used wrists as an example becasue there are many cases of thick wrist bones seemingly protruding from the skin of wrists, that indicate a clear difference in thickness of bones.

Can you be more specific here?

Because what you said can be an illusion. Look at skinny people. Since there is not enough meat in their wrists, their wrist bones would appear as if they're protruding. Now compare them to their more muscular or fatter counterparts, who look as if they almost lack wrist bones (obviously because fat and/or muscle is slathered over the bones).

I think that you think that becasue it doesn't seem obvious to you, it isn't real.

What a superficial accusation.

I don't think you understand what nutrition is.

Nutrition:
"the process of providing or obtaining the food necessary for health and growth."
"food or nourishment."
"the branch of science that deals with nutrients and nutrition, particularly in humans."

If you don't eat anymore, you won't grow and you will die.

So you can't back up what you say, you tell me that I don't know what nutrition is. Just classic.

I mean, you're really telling me, as if I'm a kindergartner, that people die if they don't eat? What do you have next? The sky is blue?

Btw, the average height in African nations is rather short, this website goes through a few: http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/height-chart.shtml
Once again, I refer you back to the point about scientific experiments regarding only having one independent variable.

That's not terribly short. For having malnutrition, they have a rather decent height. If the average male was around (or lower than) 160cm, then maybe you have a point (incidentally, southeast Asian men seemed to the shortest).

Furthermore, nobody's saying that African inhabitants are giants.

Darwinism = "the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin." It does not mean "what's happening to humans and how the environment is affecting us"

More pedantry and petty nitpicks that I didn't bother quoting. Natural selection isn't always in the "definition" anyway. Try the Merriam-Webster dictionary of Darwinism - ("the theory of Charles Darwin about how plant and animal species develop").

How come you didn't answer when I asked you if you're thick or small boned?

 

[Crocodile Bani]

What's going on?  Aren't you two meant to be putting words in my mouth and talking nonsense about me, instead of doing the same to each other?