Opinions on what constitutes a normal head shape?

Discussion in 'BMP - Public' started by Nottuh, Apr 23, 2017.

  1. Nottuh

    Nottuh Active Member Governor

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Posts:
    252
    Thanks Received:
    231
    I wanted to start a thread on what forum members thought about what constitutes an ordinary or "normalfag" head shape. I just thought it'd be good to have a thread on this so that maybe a consensus could be arrived at for what a baseline genpop head shape is, especially in profile. I am also increasingly concerned about people being force-fit into Edenic categories when their heads aren't really very unusually shaped.

    I think these guys all have relatively common head shapes for White males:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Both these head shapes are curvoccipital, but don't really look strange or alien-like in any way to me. They look like what I would see on most people at a grocery store or in another place full of ordinary people. Anyone else have any thoughts?
     
    • Thank Thank x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
  2. Polymath

    Polymath Member Typed

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Posts:
    73
    Thanks Received:
    75
    I think it depends a lot on where you live. In the Balkans, you'll see a lot of flat heads. In Scandinavia or Iberia, more protruding occipitals.
     
    • Thank Thank x 3
  3. Nottuh

    Nottuh Active Member Governor

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Posts:
    252
    Thanks Received:
    231
    Yeah, I thought the same as well. I think if you're not living in the Albania or Montenegro, or somewhere like that, then most people will be curvoccipital. I don't see very many planoccipital people, though they're not non-existent where I live, either.
     
  4. Ophiuchus

    Ophiuchus Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2017
    Posts:
    152
    Thanks Received:
    158
    I'll admit that I'm guilty of this, like in the MT thread where I implied that Alexander Hamilton's apparently curvoccipital skull contributed to his being at odds politically and interpersonally with conspicuously high-vaulted Aaron Burr. Hamilton, though curvoccipital, doesn't definitively or strongly fall into an Edenic category neurocranium-wise, and could actually be thought of to serve as a decent example of a "normalfag" head shape. Here's a collage of people who I feel exhibit a more or less "normally-shaped" neurocranium close to the mean for white males:

    [​IMG]

    For the sake of completeness--and also to have something to compare against--I've also put together compilations of people who I believe exemplify the classic, well-defined "T-Back" and "M-Back" types.

    T-Back/Occ:

    [​IMG]

    M-Back/Par:

    [​IMG]


    Though I also believe there are two ways of looking at and approaching Edenic craniology. The first way is sticking to solid, clear-cut examples of genetic outliers like the ones in the compilations above. I try to stick to this standard for the public BMP forum. The second way of looking at it involves merely ascertaining where the majority of a given person's brain mass is located by judging the shape of their skull, putting less pure emphasis on abnormalities with regards to things like size and elongation. I used this second method in this post, where I admittedly make some reaches to include all the people (including such cognitive titans as Arnold Schwarzenegger lol) from their respective MBTI type in my data sample. I believe both methods have a good deal of explicative power, being that brain/neurocranium size isn't the only predictor of intelligence (Ashkenazi Jews, for instance, have relatively small crania). Though again, I do agree with you that the public BMP zone should be reserved for clear-cut cases.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2017
    • Thank Thank x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Nottuh

    Nottuh Active Member Governor

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Posts:
    252
    Thanks Received:
    231
    This is similar to how I've been thinking about how classification has been working here lately. I think the first approach is best for determining who the real weirdos (no negative connotation intended) are, while the second approach may actually be more useful for discerning physical categories of head shapes that may be linked to psychological traits and other characteristics. With the second approach, virtually anyone in the general public could be fit into an Edenic category, without that making such a person a Melon or Thal, or what have you, only that their designation in that category is simply classifying them according what their relative cranial shape is (as you said). I think this approach has its utility because relative cranial shapes appear to be quite variable even among normal people, and there is probably some effect of these differences on cognition, etc.

    I'm personally fine with either approach to Edenic phrenology, although it would be helpful if members were to clearly communicate which method of classification they were using while typing someone.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 3
  6. Vejiortan

    Vejiortan Geheimrat Baron

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2016
    Posts:
    2,304
    Thanks Received:
    1,196
    We could start by reserving the names "Thal" "Melon" "MT" for the outliers, while using other terms (normal anatomical and/or this system) for the normal shapes.
     
    • Thank Thank x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Ophiuchus

    Ophiuchus Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2017
    Posts:
    152
    Thanks Received:
    158
    No offense taken, lel

    Agreed. It's fairly obvious that head shape does indicate neural apportionment, which does tend to have an observable (though far from 100% reliably predictable) effect on psychological traits and personality; this "shape-based" approach, therefore, still has a good deal of value, though the overall theory would indeed probably be better served by each typer indicating and specifying when they are using this approach to classify a given typee.

    I think your system is excellent, particularly the tripartite aspect of the naming convention, which I think is probably the natural progression from the original "four humours" (TT, TM, MT, MM) model. It does up the ante considerably in terms of explicative depth and precision--and therefore inaccessibility for newcomers/beginners to the theory--but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing in terms of long-term quality.

    "Normal" anatomical classification systems (traditionally encompassing concepts and terms like the cephalic index, the original "Nordic/Med/Dinaric/Alpine/Baltic" racial paradigm; etc) and their accompanying terminology will always have their place in any sort of phrenological/craniological classification system. I think the best approach where these terms are concerned would be simply to apply them where appropriate at the user's own discretion.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2017
    • Thank Thank x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page