Haplogroup Characteristics - R

IronSide said:
I am Haplogroup I2 but my height is 170 cm, I don't feel tall.
Click to expand...

The paper by Ellis et al. posted above by Dinarid says that Y-DNA differences account for a difference in height of one or two centimeters between men. That's not a lot and it won't make a person whose autosomal genes say 170 cm become 180 or 190 cm, but at least we can say that the Y chromosome does have a small influence on height.
 
Coriolan said:
The paper by Ellis et al. posted above by Dinarid says that Y-DNA differences account for a difference in height of one or two centimeters between men. That's not a lot and it won't make a person whose autosomal genes say 170 cm become 180 or 190 cm, but at least we can say that the Y chromosome does have a small influence on height.
Click to expand...

Exactly. But in men who are abnormally short there have been in many cases found to be deletions on the Y chromosome as noted by Maciamo, and this includes nonrecombinant regions of course or it would be irrelevant. I expect more genes affecting height will be found on the Y chromosome.
 
Well the I group was probably the earliest to settle in Europe which is the best continent for living conditions and they didn't worry about migrating anywhere else, they got comfortable and might've killed off the neanderthals.
The R1b came in later and then the R1a came in after them. In larger numbers probably which is why they are the most common today. But the R1b got pushed out further west over time to the ocean, not being able to expand continentally they expanded through the seas and this is how the British conquered or colonized a lot of the world. The other ones like the Spaniards, French, Dutch, Portuguese did as well but they pretty much copied the British. And the British got invaded by the Vikings through the sea that probably gave them the idea they could do the same. And the Germans have a lot of R1b also but didn't expand much, and when they did again probably tried to copy the British.

These sound like sloppy theories, yes...
Btw Hitler and Stalin or Genghis Khan, Alexander the great or the Romans, Vikings, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians were not all predominantly R1b. Civilizations come and go dude.
It's more interesting to me why are the Rs bigger in populations and other hgs that are highest in number... environment? luck? more horny? Are there interesting scientific studies on this subject?
 
And those Royals and kings and even US presidents, aren't they all pretty much inbreds and were obsessed with keeping the bloodline? And you think it's weird it's mostly one ydna hg or mtdna dominating...
And I also agree with some of the posts in here that point out the mathematical probability, more people have a certain haplogroup more of them will be in pretty much any group of people. And most voters maybe do subconsciously favor the guy that has their halpogroup.... but that one sounds way too woo woo
 
Apsurdistan said:
Well the I group was probably the earliest to settle in Europe which is the best continent for living conditions and they didn't worry about migrating anywhere else, they got comfortable and might've killed off the neanderthals.
The R1b came in later and then the R1a came in after them. In larger numbers probably which is why they are the most common today. But the R1b got pushed out further west over time to the ocean, not being able to expand continentally they expanded through the seas and this is how the British conquered or colonized a lot of the world. The other ones like the Spaniards, French, Dutch, Portuguese did as well but they pretty much copied the British. And the British got invaded by the Vikings through the sea that probably gave them the idea they could do the same. And the Germans have a lot of R1b also but didn't expand much, and when they did again probably tried to copy the British.

These sound like sloppy theories, yes...
Btw Hitler and Stalin or Genghis Khan, Alexander the great or the Romans, Vikings, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians were not all predominantly R1b. Civilizations come and go dude.
It's more interesting to me why are the Rs bigger in populations and other hgs that are highest in number... environment? luck? more horny? Are there interesting scientific studies on this subject?
Click to expand...

You clearly miss the point. I understand that not literally every prolific conquerer belongs to R. That does not however disprove my earlier point that R lineages seem disproportionately successful. For example, in studies, many American native populations, Hg I was practically absent in northern/Great Lakes Amerindians, but R is abundant. Due to British and French colonization, one would assume that at least some frequency of I would be present in European admixture with Great Lakes natives.
 
Interesting to ponder! Dinarid, I'm curious: how tall are you?

As for the R1b being more exploratory and/or aggressive, that certainly plays out in my family; we've been expanding southwestward for hundreds of years (from the Scottish borderlands over 400 years ago, to Ulster, North Carolina, Texas, California, and then on to Hawai'i), never staying in one place for more than a couple generations (several of my family have also settled in Latin America). I'd say one of our favorite pastimes is stepping outside our comfort zone. You indicated you think Is make better leaders. What shared traits do you see among your peeps?
 
I am now 191cm.

I was just saying we make better leaders because our leadership style seems under appreciated because it's less common–I didn't mean what I said LOL (i.e. insinuating that we are better-performing). I think that Hg I men tend to be less likely to act on emotion, than R. I do believe that we feel very strong emotions that we keep to ourselves, as we are more 'introverted'. I would say we are highly sensitive.

Also I really appreciate that bit about your family because that kind of expansionism is exactly what I associate with R. It's interesting to note that with the Vikings, though they were mostly I1, the upper classes seemed to be more of both R (R1a and R1b). What is your perception of R-traits?
 
stevenarmstrong said:
Interesting to ponder! Dinarid, I'm curious: how tall are you?

As for the R1b being more exploratory and/or aggressive, that certainly plays out in my family; we've been expanding southwestward for hundreds of years (from the Scottish borderlands over 400 years ago, to Ulster, North Carolina, Texas, California, and then on to Hawai'i), never staying in one place for more than a couple generations (several of my family have also settled in Latin America). I'd say one of our favorite pastimes is stepping outside our comfort zone. You indicated you think Is make better leaders. What shared traits do you see among your peeps?
Click to expand...
My hypotheses is that Steppe populations which came with almost exclusive R1 haplogroups, developed roaming genes when herding horses for few thousand years. They loved roaming on horseback over the steppe. It means love for exploration and travel too. One other member noticed that herd of horses were the main staple of steppe people. Horse thieving and protecting horses was a paramount task for steppe people. Thanks to this, they became aggressive warriors with time.
Northern Europe has more of their ancestry than anybody else. Nobody produced bigger and more violent wars than Central/North Europeans. Nobody conquered more world than Europeans. Mongolians had the biggest empire one time, but guess what. They are also steppe horse riding warriors. Vikings loved roaming in their boats, so did British. Bikers gangs, and all bike riding lovers are mostly white Northern Europeans and their descenders. And I don't mean riding to the destination. I mean love of riding and roaming just for sake of it, without any other purpose.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29412-ANE-admixture-and-nomadic-gene?p=423606#post423606
 
Interesting! Unfortunately, most people have not been tested, so it's difficult to pick out shared traits. But I am tall (about 6'2"), very muscled (I weigh at least 205 even with little to no body fat), highly intelligent but in a very non-conformist sort of way, creative, aggressive (very good at American football), I've been a leader all my life (team captain on sports teams, regional sales manager now), highly adventurous, courageous (never hesitate to put myself in harms way if necessary), restless, impatient, very physical yet also very contemplative and expressive, charismatic, attractive to opposite sex (and same sex in West Hollywood ha), love nature, enjoy cities, and I've always been fascinated by history and genealogy, crave knowledge, experience, struggle, money, and influence, but also fascinated with all things spiritual and occult. Highly competitive, especially with myself and others like me.
 
Another key trait I've seen among all the men in my family: although we are strong with strong personalities, we do not seek women who are subservient. Rather we seek women who can challenge and complement us— Women who are as strong or perhaps even stronger than we are ( psychologically. A woman who is physically stronger than me would be quite scary.) :)
 
stevenarmstrong said:
Another key trait I've seen among all the men in my family: although we are strong with strong personalities, we do not seek women who are subservient. Rather we seek women who can challenge and complement us— Women who are as strong or perhaps even stronger than we are ( psychologically. A woman who is physically stronger than me would be quite scary.) :)
Click to expand...

I'm with you there–I simply can't stand women with weak personalities. The adventurous spirit seems very typical of R. My family and nation as a whole are very territorial, with a strong sense of attachment to a plot of land. You can see in the Balkans in areas with high percentages of Haplogroup I that the names of certain areas come from various patrilineal clans living there. Also in Scandinavia areas with high frequencies of I seem to have more cultural continuity since the Middle Ages. As far as your height although it does seem relatively uncommon for a man with Haplogroup R to be that tall I would never rule it out.
 
LeBrok said:
My hypotheses is that Steppe populations which came with almost exclusive R1 haplogroups, developed roaming genes when herding horses for few thousand years. They loved roaming on horseback over the steppe. It means love for exploration and travel too. One other member noticed that herd of horses were the main staple of steppe people. Horse thieving and protecting horses was a paramount task for steppe people. Thanks to this, they became aggressive warriors with time.
Northern Europe has more of their ancestry than anybody else. Nobody produced bigger and more violent wars than Central/North Europeans. Nobody conquered more world than Europeans. Mongolians had the biggest empire one time, but guess what. They are also steppe horse riding warriors. Vikings loved roaming in their boats, so did British. Bikers gangs, and all bike riding lovers are mostly white Northern Europeans and their descenders. And I don't mean riding to the destination. I mean love of riding and roaming just for sake of it, without any other purpose.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29412-ANE-admixture-and-nomadic-gene?p=423606#post423606
Click to expand...

This is a very interesting idea. I will still insist on haplogroups being important because even from the same populations I see a pattern with R being more bold and adventurous.
 
Posting this again:

A mean score±SD of 69.70±19.95 was obtained for the questionnaire. Each individual was genotyped following a phylogenetic hierarchical approach to define evolutionary Y haplogroups. Five Y haplogroups that are commonly found in Eurasia and Pakistan comprised 87% (n=136) of the population sample, with one haplogroup, R1a1, constituting 55% of the sampled population. A comparison of the total and four subscale mean scores across the five common Y haplogroups that were present at a frequency ≥3% in this ethnic group revealed no overall significant differences. However, effect-size comparisons allowed us to detect an association of the haplogroups R2 (Cohen's d statistic=.448–.732) and R1a1 (d=.107–.448) with lower self-reported aggression mean scores in this population.
Click to expand...

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ab.20281/abstract

There seems to be a persistent idea that higher aggression leads to proliferation. I think there is no reason whatsoever to believe that this is the case.

What's funny is that until recently authors concerned with fertility and race thought that history usually saw the noble upper classes overcome by the fertile provincial lower classes. Hence the pervasive fear of dysgenic trends.

Both schools are bullshit imho, but it's interesting how ideas change like that.
 
What's the probability that it's all just a coincidence ?
 
Yes the height thing may be a more recent phenomenon. Both my father and I are tall. But my grandfather was not and neither do I think was his father. But both my mother and my father's mother are tall, so I think we take more after them. And while I'm stressing the strength of our women's personalities, it is true they are also quite physically strong. My grandfather, father and I all have tall, physically strong, and highly athletic mates. They are also all highly intelligent, dynamic and successful.
 
IronSide said:
Good, now let's think of one factor other than the Y-chromosome that made the Indo-Europeans successful ?
Click to expand...

Language, technology, culture, tactics, disease resistance, diet, exercise, luck ...

I don't think anyone's really making an argument—at least not a scientific argument—one way or the other here. I think we're just having fun :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 25502 times.

Back
Top