When Morgan Worthy examined the eye color of white NFL players his big finding was that quarterbacks were much more likely to have blue eyes. But he also interestingly found that the blacker the NFL position, the darker eyed the whites who play it tend to be.
A body of research indicates that neuromelanin tends to increase speed and reaction time which helps to explain why dark eyes are the default across animal species. While blue eyes are very useful for playing QB, it seems dark eyes are more useful for practically everything else
Once you start to pay attention to eye color in daily interactions what you'll start to find is that darker eyed whites tend to have faster, livelier expressions; they even blink faster than the blue eyed (I have a pretty strong bias for brown eyed girls).
It would be very hard to assemble a sample, but I think if you examined a large number of North European boxers you would see more brown eyes than chance, that being the sport where lightning speeds pays the greatest dividends.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Christianity has historically helped to spread monogamy, exogamy, and consensual marriage around the world. None of these practices, though, originate in the Bible. They are all European traits which have piggybacked on to the Catholic Church. Where, exactly, do they come from?
In 1539 Philip of Hesse wrote to Martin Luther, asking him if bigamy was Biblically permissible. His first wife was ugly, smelly and drunk but these were then not grounds for divorce. Luther wrote back, admitting that "God not condemn polygamy.. but even seemed to countenance it”
Luther was not misinterpreting the Old Testament. Abraham, Jacob, Saul, David, and Solomon all married polygamously. The Bible only regulates the practice: a man cannot neglect his first wife, marry her sister, or prioritize children of his favorite wife in his inheritance.
In 18th century England young men and women had complete freedom to select their spouses. This distinguished England not only from India or China but France and Germany. Where did this freedom come from and what are its consequences? A thread on "Marriage and Love in England":
To start, a love story. John Paston was a 15th century aristocrat. While John is away from home, his 20 year old daughter Margery pledges herself to his bailiff, Richard Calle. The family is outraged: her brother writes she will end up selling candles on the street.
Despite the family’s opposition (and wealth) Calle is confident he and Margery will win out. The law is on their side because Margery had formally betrothed herself to him and in England this means they are already married. The case is taken before the Bishop of Norfolk.
Those who attempt to understand the Industrial Revolution often travel down a dead end. Every old economy is mostly agrarian, so European agriculture must have been unusually good, right? But European grain yields were actually awful and they somehow succeeded in spite of them.
Take this standard account from Robert Allen. It notes that on the eve of the Industrial Revolution English grain yields were good by the standards of northwest Europe, which itself “reaped yields twice those in most other parts of the world”. This is misleading in the extreme.
While Napoleon’s armies were in Egypt they surveyed the country's agriculture and discovered that it was more than twice as productive per land unit as in France. What's more surprising is that, when irrigated, the land yielded more even than in industrial age England.
Why do the Somali have such thin bodies and large foreheads? This physical type is often explained as an adaptation to desert heat, but occurs in no other desert population outside Africa. The real culprit is milk anemia, a disease common in pastoralists and, once, in Europeans.
There are other African peoples, all pastoralists, that share many aspects of the Somali “look”. The type goes by many names: Hamitic, Cushitic, Ethiopid. Because they are often tall, the Belgian anthropologist Jean Hiernaux categorized them as “Elongated African".
The “F”s on Hiernaux’s map stand for Fulani, another pastoralist people. The Fulani have a striking physical resemblance to East African herders; many I think, could pass as Somali. There is though no close genetic link between them, something Hiernaux guessed 60 years ago.
I grew up in rural Minnesota, about the least English part of the US. When my family went on vacations to "Real America" it dawned on me that we were not yet fully assimilated. We were Minnesota nice, but the Old Americans had something we didn't: they were "gentlemanly".
On vacation, my family went out to a Arizona VFW to celebrate my sister's 10th birthday. As he was leaving this long faced cowboy looking man congratulated her and casually handed her a 20. I was amazed at that. Minnesotans are _very_ nice, but they don't do things like that.
I tried to understand: why don't Minnesota Germans and Norwegians ever act like that? Maybe because it would be seen as invasion of privacy, but that's only a rationalization. Germanics don't do it because they're stiff: they prefer straightforward, stereotyped politeness.
This thread is all about your legal options if you were to travel back in time to medieval Europe and murder someone. It's also about measuring the decline of the extended family and the origins of English individualism. On Bertha Phillpotts' "Kindred and Clan in Past Time".
Say as an example you traveled back in time to 14th century Sweden and murdered somebody. This is who and what you would have to pay: plaintiff 7 marks, King 4 marks, parents 2 marks, brothers 1 mark, 1st cousin 1/2 mark, 2nd cousin 1/4th, 3rd cousin 1/8th.
The old Germanic name for this custom is wergeld. The wergeld gets mocked as barbaric, but understand that the fine to be paid was huge. In early laws it was often set at 200 gold solidi, which Seebohm thought was the equivalent value of 100 cattle, the original Germanic fee.