Which is more European ? Finno-ugric languages or Indo-European languages?

[Melancon]

I also don't think you quite appreciate the fact that most Europeans carry a big chunk of the genes of these "hybrid" hunter gatherers like La Brana and Loschbour. That's how WHG is defined, you know. The English, for example, carry 36% of it, and the French 31%, so I would imagine your numbers are around that somewhere. Then, of course, there's Mal'ta. (Raghvan et al) Everyone in Europe has a chunk of that, and so far as I can tell, Mal'ta boy probably looked like a dark Central Asian, if not rather Australoid.

You may be right; but these analysis still seem a bit farfetched to me. If La Brana and other Paleolithic Y-DNA I men originally had dark skin and blue eyes; how come that the dark skin gene is not more common than the fair skin gene? If fair skin Europeans mixed with dark skinned Europeans, how come the white fair skin is more dominant than the darker skin? Even though the blue eyes are dominate as a recessive gene; the dark skin that came with these blue eyed dominant people; should also be as dominant as their blue eyes. But for some reason, the white fair skin gene is more dominant than the dark skin gene. -- That doesn't make any sense to me.

Did you know most Mestizos such as Mexicans; on average have 65% White Spanish ancestry; and 45% Native American Indian ancestry? How come their skin is darker than a Europeans now; even though most of their Hispanic ancestry is over 50% European on average? How come their skin is darker and tanned? This suggests that the darker skin genes are more dominant than the fair skin genes. And also, there ARE blonde Mexicans/Mestizos, in case you haven't noticed.

Did you also know that Native Americans are descended from the same group of people of pre-Siberia? How is it, that they managed to develop darker skin while the East Asians remained fair skined? Both races (Siberian Asians and Native Americans) seem to share Y-DNA Q1a2.

Did these pre-Native American Siberian people manage to find dark-skinned Australoids or Middle Eastern people, on their way to the Behring Strait to cross into North America? And bred with them? Thus, it now makes sense that these proto-Native Americans who had fair skin are now dark skinned Native Americans, right?

Ahahaha, no.

Do you see the logical fallacy in this assessment? If Native American indians came from pre-Siberians or pre-Eastern Asians as theorized, how in the world did they manage to lose their fair skin in favor of darker skin?

What you and Aberdeen seem to be suggesting is that white Europeans are a mix-race. If white Europeans are a mix of races; then that must suggest that Native Americans are also a mix of races, for losing their fair skin in favor of darker skin. (However that happened. Sarcastic.)

 

[bicicleur 2]

Again, are you kidding? There is healthy disagreement on this site, but discussions are based on an analysis of scientific papers, not uninformed internet chatter from dubious forums, which is obviously where you got the gem about La Brana being a "hybrid". Was Loschbour a hybrid too? Or Pitted Ware people? Where is the scientific source which found depigmentation snps not only for blue eyes, but for blonde hair and fair skin in "Cro-Magnons" in southern France?

If you're really interested in the topic I would suggest that you read the relevant scientific papers. Olade et al covers La Brana, but then why don't read Lazaridis et al. for the Loschbour results? Go on to Skoglund et al for Scandinavian Pitted Ware. Were they hybrids too? Then there's Motala. (Again, Lazaridis et al). One sample turned up one copy each of derived SLC24A5 and Herc 2. A medium skinned person? Perhaps. but it was one sample. Oh, and for Mal'ta, read Raghavan et al. (Dark hair, dark eyes and dark skin) Go on to read Sandra Wilde at al to understand how depigmentation works, i.e. that it is a polygenic trait. Then, how about the recent Gamba et al. paper, where the first light haired ancient sample turned up in a Neolithic context. Just google them. Then use the search engine here. They're all extensively analyzed on this very site.

there seems to be only evidence for dark or semi-coloured skin
but where did todays white skin come from then?
it's not found nowhere yet?
tocharians and r1a mummies in eastern Tarim basin seem to have had it
but they were R1b and R1a, derived from darkskinned R-Malta
scandinavians have white skin, they have R1a and R1b like the rest of Europe but they are the ones with highest rate of I

I know La Brana was darkskinned but what is actually known about skincolour of Loschbourg, Motola and Pitted ware?
Please note that Loschbourg and Motola lines are extinct, and so probably also I2a1 pitted ware
Now we have found C6 in neolithic Hungary I also suspect the Spanish mesolithic C6 got extinct too. What is known about skin colour of the Hungarian samples?

origin of white skin seems hard to find, which means it must have spread very rapidly till todays extent

 

[Melancon]

there seems to be only evidence for dark or semi-coloured skin
but where did todays white skin come from then?
it's not found nowhere yet?
tocharians and r1a mummies in eastern Tarim basin seem to have had it
but they were R1b and R1a, derived from darkskinned R-Malta
scandinavians have white skin, they have R1a and R1b like the rest of Europe but they are the ones with highest rate of I

I know La Brana was darkskinned but what is actually known about skincolour of Loschbourg, Motola and Pitted ware?
Please note that Loschbourg and Motola lines are extinct, and so probably also I2a1 pitted ware
Now we have found C6 in neolithic Hungary I also suspect the Spanish mesolithic C6 got extinct too. What is known about skin colour of the Hungarian samples?

origin of white skin seems hard to find, which means it must have spread very rapidly till todays extent

I completely agree; and am met with the same skepticism.

 

[sparkey]

Sources please?

I believe N1c1 is purely Asian. Makes you wonder if Finns are actually white.


They may have mostly Europeans genetics; but N1c1 seems to be an Asian haplogroup.

Not just "mostly European," but perhaps the most European--at least in the sense of carrying ancient hunter-gatherer genes. Finns are clearly very white, both in skin tone and in the sense of carrying genes that have been in Europe for a long time. I can't think of any group with higher WHG (hunter-gatherer) autosomal component rates than the Finns. Maybe the Saami?

That said, it does seem that N1c1 is a more recent introduction to Europe than Haplogroup I. Unfortunately, correlating Y-DNA frequency to overall heritage almost always breaks down, especially if we're looking pre-Iron Age. Minor migrations long ago seem to often have their Y-lines magnified in largely native populations.

 

[sparkey]

You may be right; but these analysis still seem a bit farfetched to me. If La Brana and other Paleolithic Y-DNA I men originally had dark skin and blue eyes; how come that the dark skin gene is not more common than the fair skin gene? If fair skin Europeans mixed with dark skinned Europeans, how come the white fair skin is more dominant than the darker skin? Even though the blue eyes are dominate as a recessive gene; the dark skin that came with these blue eyed dominant people; should also be as dominant as their blue eyes. But for some reason, the white fair skin gene is more dominant than the dark skin gene. -- That doesn't make any sense to me.

We're not talking about dominant versus recessive, we're talking about selection. Does it make sense now?

Did you know most Mestizos such as Mexicans; on average have 65% White Spanish ancestry; and 45% Native American Indian ancestry?

Wow, 110%!

How come their skin is darker than a Europeans now; even though most of their Hispanic ancestry is over 50% European on average? How come their skin is darker and tanned? This suggests that the darker skin genes are more dominant than the fair skin genes. And also, there ARE blonde Mexicans/Mestizos, in case you haven't noticed.

No, this doesn't on its own suggest anything in particular about what's dominant and what's recessive, especially considering that there's more than one gene that affects skin color. And it doesn't matter anyway, because we're not talking about what's dominant and what's recessive.

Did you also know that Native Americans are descended from the same group of people of pre-Siberia? How is it, that they managed to develop darker skin while the East Asians remained fair skined? Both races (Siberian Asians and Native Americans) seem to share Y-DNA Q1a2.

Selection. Why are you assuming that they "developed" darker skin and the East Asians "remained" fair skinned, by the way? I admit I haven't studied pigmentation closely in that part of the world, but I always figured it was likely the other way around, with East Asians developing lighter skin later.

Do you see the logical fallacy in this assessment?

Um, false dichotomy maybe? In which you present one strange and obviously wrong explanation, and then expect readers to conclude that your ideas must then be correct?

What you and Aberdeen seem to be suggesting is that white Europeans are a mix-race. If white Europeans are a mix of races; then that must suggest that Native Americans are also a mix of races, for losing their fair skin in favor of darker skin. (However that happened. Sarcastic.)

Maybe Europeans are a mix of ancient races, but a "race" is just a phenotypically similar group of people anyway, so it's not contradictory to then say that Europeans have since become a common race, perhaps alongside West Asians and maybe some North Africans. There's nothing problematic here.

 

[Melancon]

Wow, 110%!

That was a typo. I meant 35%.

What is with you people and attacking me with all these baseless assumptions and accusations? And sarcastic responses. This is called passive-aggression, hint?

I would love to see Maciamo side with you three (Aberdeen, Sparkey, Angela) on this issue. I already discussed this with him before. I'm not someone you people should be attacking. These constant rude remarks towards me, are making me more and more wanting to distance myself from this board. It is a known fact that N1 has a founder effect in an East Asian population. Even Maciamo has stated this on the summary for N1c. Get a life guys, huh? Geez.

Not just "mostly European," but perhaps the most European--at least in the sense of carrying ancient hunter-gatherer genes. Finns are clearly very white, both in skin tone and in the sense of carrying genes that have been in Europe for a long time. I can't think of any group with higher WHG (hunter-gatherer) autosomal component rates than the Finns. Maybe the Saami?

The most European huh? That's funny ... because N1c, as I stated above, has a founder effect in East Asians; similar to Chinese and Japanese, who carry Y-DNA haplogroup O. It is a descendent of the Asian and East Asian NOPQ descending branch of Haplogroup K.

Finns and Saami are NOT the most "European". Please get your facts straight before posting. European mtDna is not the same as East Asian Y-DNA.

 

[sparkey]

That was a typo. I meant 35%.

What is with you people and attacking me with all these baseless assumptions and accusations? And sarcastic responses. This is called passive-aggression, hint?

Touchy touchy. If you want to take a serious, deep dive into these issues, then try engaging our more serious points. Like what do you have to say about my points about selection?

I would love to see Maciamo side with you three (Aberdeen, Sparkey, Angela) on this issue. I already discussed this with him before. I'm not someone you people should be attacking. These constant rude remarks towards me, are making me more and more wanting to distance myself from this board. It is a known fact that N1 has a founder effect in an East Asian population. Even Maciamo has stated this on the summary for N1c. Get a life guys, huh? Geez.

What do you think a founder effect implies? I don't think anybody would argue that a founder effect implies a place of origin. Not that Y-DNA frequency implies overall genetic makeup anyway, precisely because Y-DNA can have founder effects in a population while autosomal DNA remains relatively stable.

The most European huh? That's funny ... because N1c, as I stated above, has a founder effect in East Asians; similar to Chinese and Japanese, who carry Y-DNA haplogroup O. It is a descendent of the Asian and East Asian NOPQ descending branch of Haplogroup K.

Finns and Saami are NOT the most "European". Please get your facts straight before posting. European mtDna is not the same as East Asian Y-DNA.

Come on, I said exactly what I meant by them being the most European, and it didn't have anything to do with them carrying European-origin Y-DNA haplogroups, and didn't have anything to do with mtDNA either. Please make an effort to understand what I mean.

 

[Melancon]

Touchy touchy. If you want to take a serious, deep dive into these issues, then try engaging our more serious points. Like what do you have to say about my points about selection?



What do you think a founder effect implies? I don't think anybody would argue that a founder effect implies a place of origin. Not that Y-DNA frequency implies overall genetic makeup anyway, precisely because Y-DNA can have founder effects in a population while autosomal DNA remains relatively stable.



Come on, I said exactly what I meant by them being the most European, and it didn't have anything to do with them carrying European-origin Y-DNA haplogroups, and didn't have anything to do with mtDNA either. Please make an effort to understand what I mean.

I'm touchy and thin-skinned? Oh really? Yeah. This is nearly about as insulting as what they call internet "tr0lling", you know? Your arguments, like Aberdeens, have no merit to them and are completely irrelevant to my first point. They are completely biased, illegitimate, illogical, lacking evidence and predetermined by personal beliefs and myths that aren't there and have no basis in reality.

You and Aberdeen have both accused me of actions with no basis; and have reacted to my posts and based on haughty emotions rather than logic. You sarcastically said "wow 110%"; are you and Aberdeen deliberately trying to make me pissed off or somehow, turn this post into a flame war? Or do you want to argue like a real mature grown up? Is that both your ultimate goal? First I'm idiotic, then I'm racist and illogical. Durrr...wonder where all of this is coming from? I would appreciate you to keep all the baseless assumptions and insults to yourselves.

Again; you both resort to making baseless accusations and assumptions without any real concrete evidence.

Come on, I said exactly what I meant by them being the most European, and it didn't have anything to do with them carrying European-origin Y-DNA haplogroups, and didn't have anything to do with mtDNA either. Please make an effort to understand what I mean.

Uhhhmmm No sir, please go back and read my post. :/ You should really take your own advices. Please make an effort to understand what I mean.

Here's a protip: PLEASE REFRAIN FROM PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. First and foremost. That goes for Aberdeen too.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Minor migrations long ago seem to often have their Y-lines magnified in largely native populations.

What do you mean? That some newly arrived male line often has a larger ofspring than the natives? Or is there some other explanation possible?
It would explain why the same Y-DNA can have different skull or skeleton types.

 

[sparkey]

I'm touchy and thin-skinned?

I don't know anything about you as a person, but reacting as you did to "wow 110%" without addressing anything else in my post is being touchy. You're not helping your case here.

Your arguments, like Aberdeens, have no merit to them and are completely irrelevant to my first point. They are completely biased, illegitimate, illogical, lacking evidence and predetermined by personal beliefs and myths that aren't there and have no basis in reality.

Selection of skin color rather than purely dominant/recessive patterns is none of those things. There are plenty of related studies. Here's one.

Finns having high WHG autosomal components is also none of those things. Unfortunately they weren't in the Lazaridis paper IIRC, but individual Finns have tested and come very close to the Estonians, who we can use as a near-proxy, and indeed have very high WHG.

Is there anything else I've said that bothers you?

Uhhhmmm No sir, please go back and read my post. :/ You should really take your own advices. Please make an effort to understand what I mean.

Here's a protip: PLEASE REFRAIN FROM PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. First and foremost. That goes for Aberdeen too.

From what I understand, you're arguing that N1c has a founder effect in East Asia, which indicates an East Asian origin, and Finns have high N1c as well, and hence we can conclude that Finns are not very European. Did I get that right? If I have, I've already argued against each step in your logic, so let's continue the conversation that direction. If not, please clarify yourself.

 

[sparkey]

What do you mean? That some newly arrived male line often has a larger ofspring than the natives? Or is there some other explanation possible?
It would explain why the same Y-DNA can have different skull or skeleton types.

The obvious explanation is that more men migrate than women, and that migrant men are more likely to take native wives than native men are to take migrant wives. The resulting population may have high Y-DNA frequency from the migrants, while retaining a lot of native autosomal DNA. I think we see this pattern often, and it makes Y-DNA problematic to use as a representation of overall genetic makeup.

 

[Melancon]

I don't know anything about you as a person, but reacting as you did to "wow 110%" without addressing anything else in my post is being touchy. You're not helping your case here.



Selection of skin color rather than purely dominant/recessive patterns is none of those things. There are plenty of related studies. Here's one.

Finns having high WHG autosomal components is also none of those things. Unfortunately they weren't in the Lazaridis paper IIRC, but individual Finns have tested and come very close to the Estonians, who we can use as a near-proxy, and indeed have very high WHG.

Is there anything else I've said that bothers you?



From what I understand, you're arguing that N1c has a founder effect in East Asia, which indicates an East Asian origin, and Finns have high N1c as well, and hence we can conclude that Finns are not very European. Did I get that right? If I have, I've already argued against each step in your logic, so let's continue the conversation that direction. If not, please clarify yourself.

I see you are not listening to what I am saying and are resorting to arguments based on your own version of misguided "logic" that you are passing off to be true.

I am done here; I can see you are a basketcase with no desire to change and have not put any thought and effort into my arguments and analysis. I was never claiming anything other than N1c being dominant in Finns when the reality is that it has an East Asian origin. In other words; this suggests that Finns are not white European. It means they are mixed-race. They may look as white as all other Europeans, but they are not white Europeans and it suggests their original paternal ancestors were East Siberian Asian people; possibly related to Yakuts. This is not racism or bias; it is reality.

You are putting words in my mouth by accusing me of presenting baseless arguments; and claiming that I am arguing over something completely different. As if I am basing my arguments over something more complex; when in truth, reality is actually more subtler. When you missed the whole point of my first, initial post. [And the reality is, is that while it is true Finnish people are European; they are also mixed-race. But have more European genetics over East Asian.]

Let's give it a rest and call it a day for now; genius. In the meantime I highly suggest you and Aberdeen to get over yourselves and grow up a bit. (I don't know where these baseless accusations, assumptions and insults come from; but maybe you are both "traveling a little light in the saddle". But what do I know about "geniuses", big egos, and a lack of size in the pants.) Tee hee har-har.

 

[Kristiina]

[this suggests that Finns are not white European. It means they are mixed-race. They may look as white as all other Europeans, but they are not white Europeans and it suggests their original paternal ancestors were East Siberian Asian people; possibly related to Yakuts. This is not racism or bias; it is reality.

[/QUOTE]

When I have to face this kind of opinions, I am very unhappy that I can communicate in English. It would be better to be fluent in Russian and Chinese. They would probably show much more respect for me and for my cultural background.

 

[bicicleur 2]

The obvious explanation is that more men migrate than women, and that migrant men are more likely to take native wives than native men are to take migrant wives. The resulting population may have high Y-DNA frequency from the migrants, while retaining a lot of native autosomal DNA. I think we see this pattern often, and it makes Y-DNA problematic to use as a representation of overall genetic makeup.

just what I taught
I read a book about migrations :
http://www.amazon.com/First-Migrants-Ancient-Migration-Perspective/dp/1405189088
a chapter deals with southward neolithic expansion from China to SE Asia
according to me, this is about expansion of Y-DNA O3
skelet types of chinese farmers were different from malayan hunter-gatherers
when chinese farmers arrive south there is an explosiv population growth
on the cimeteries they find chinese farmer skeletons next to malayan skeleton types
they conclude hunter-gatherers adopted farming
IMO the chinese farmer immagrants were predominantly male and they had lots of malayan wives
it makes much more sense in explaining the expansion of Y DNA O3

 

[bicicleur 2]

The obvious explanation is that more men migrate than women, and that migrant men are more likely to take native wives than native men are to take migrant wives. The resulting population may have high Y-DNA frequency from the migrants, while retaining a lot of native autosomal DNA. I think we see this pattern often, and it makes Y-DNA problematic to use as a representation of overall genetic makeup.

it makes Y DNA better apt to explain migrations though

 

[Aberdeen]

just what I taught
I read a book about migrations :
http://www.amazon.com/First-Migrants-Ancient-Migration-Perspective/dp/1405189088
a chapter deals with southward neolithic expansion from China to SE Asia
according to me, this is about expansion of Y-DNA O3
skelet types of chinese farmers were different from malayan hunter-gatherers
when chinese farmers arrive south there is an explosiv population growth
on the cimeteries they find chinese farmer skeletons next to malayan skeleton types
they conclude hunter-gatherers adopted farming
IMO the chinese farmer immagrants were predominantly male and they had lots of malayan wives
it makes much more sense in explaining the expansion of Y DNA O3

You can see the same pattern among Native Americans, who tend to have a lot of Y haplotypes of the kind that are typical of Europe. That happened because a trader who settled among a Native tribe would have access to a lot more resources than the Native men, so would have more children and his sons and possibly grandsons would remain at least somewhat advantaged, so would have more children. Some people think that's why R1b is the second most common Y haplotype among Native Americans. I'm not convinced that's the whole story, since I'm not sure the process has been going on long enough to have such a huge founder effect, but it's certainly at least part of the explanation.

 

[Aberdeen]

.........................

Last time I checked bro, the pre-Indo-European culture was centered around modern day Ukraine and Western Russia, East towards the Caspian Sea; the origin of haplogroup R. Which is technically NOT part of Asia; and is actually considered part of Eastern Europe....LOL

......................

Might want to research the Y-DNA Haplogroup tree once again. Your credibility and analysis seems rather uninformed and totally ignorant on the matter ... So Ahem, fail on your part, brother.

No. If you check what Maciamo wrote about the origins of R, you'll see that it's believed to have originated in Siberia, probably in the Altaic region, during the last Glacial Maximum, and R1a and R1b are believed to have split off shortly after, most likely also in Asia. So all this happened thousands of years before the development of the IE language and culture and nowhere near the IE homeland. The only Y haplotype that probably developed in Europe is I, and it split off from IJ.

 

[Angela]

Melancon: Please make an effort to understand what I mean.

We understand what you mean. You're just totally wrong, and you're wrong because you haven't read, and if you have read, have misunderstood all the relevant papers.

Until you have read and are prepared to discuss the following papers, please don't expect any further response from me:

Direct Evidence for Positive Selection of Skin, Hair and Eye Pigmentation in Europeans in the last 5,000 years, Wilde et al.
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/13/4832.full

This is what it is about: There has been much research into the factors that have influenced the human genome since the end of the last Ice Age. Anthropologists at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) and geneticists at University College London (UCL), working in collaboration with archaeologists from Berlin and Kiev, have analyzed ancient DNA from skeletons and found that selection has had a significant effect on the human genome even in the past 5,000 years, resulting in sustained changes to the appearance of people. The results of this current research project have been published this week in an article entitled "Direct evidence for positive selection of skin, hair, and eye pigmentation in Europeans during the last 5,000 years" in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
http://www.uni-mainz.de/presse/17148_ENG_HTML.php

(First, of course, you have to understand what natural selection is, in evolutionary terms. Mutations are random; many have no real effect, some are disadvantageous, and some, depending on the environment, can turn out to be helpful, and so offspring which carry them have a better chance of survival, and hence we can say that selection operates on them. )

This is another important paper:
Norton et al: Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians:
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/3/710.long

It examines the other major skin lightening location, SLC24A5, and explains how East Asians have their own depigmentation alleles, different from the West Eurasian ones.

See also: Lucotte et al-http://www.academicjournals.org/article/article1379514057_Lucotte%20and%20Yuasa%20pdf.pdf

Razib Khan provides a sort of primer here:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/g...ExpressionBlog+(Gene+Expression)#.VFvXpHvLq1g

As for where "fair" pigmentation first appeared, Otzi already had the two major skin de-pigmentation alleles in 3200 BC, if I remember correctly. (I will check.) The combination of light hair, light eyes and fair skin first appeared in an ancient sample in a Neolithic context in Hungary in about 2500 BC with no "R" lineages documented. See Gamba et al (Of course, we could find out later that they were somewhere in that part of Europe at that time.) She was totally EEF autosomally, and carried the very Near Eastern EEF mtDna of N1a1a1a. The Siberian "fair" samples are from a much later period.

 

[Melancon]

When I have to face this kind of opinions, I am very unhappy that I can communicate in English. It would be better to be fluent in Russian and Chinese. They would probably show much more respect for me and for my cultural background.

Am I supposed to be feeling sorry for you? It's just cold hard logic. The average, main paternal background in Finns is N1c; and is of Siberian East Asian origin; whether you (or anyone else on this board) want to acknowledge that or not. Deny your hidden background as a Fin; but it won't change the Truth. A lot of you Finns (if not most) have East Asian admixture somewhere. Probably about 6.1% on average. Only people in Finland who don't, are Finnish Swedes who make up 5% of the population of Finland.

I really have no clue why I am being turned into a monster in this post; for stating facts and logic. In theory it shouldn't be happening, but it is. All I am doing is explaining what Maciamo has been suggesting. I guess people on here hate reality or have issues with maturity and ego.

 

[Aberdeen]

Am I supposed to be feeling sorry for you? It's just cold hard logic. The average, main paternal background in Finns is N1c; and is of Siberian East Asian origin; whether you (or anyone else on this board) want to acknowledge that or not. Deny your hidden background as a Fin; but it won't change the Truth. A lot of you Finns (if not most) have East Asian admixture somewhere. Probably about 6.1% on average. Only people in Finland who don't, are Finnish Swedes who make up 5% of the population of Finland.

I really have no clue why I am being turned into a monster in this post; for stating facts and logic. In theory it shouldn't be happening, but it is. All I am doing is explaining what Maciamo has been suggesting. I guess people on here hate reality or have issues with maturity and ego.

Since your Y haplotype is R1b, at least some of your ancestors were Asians before they were Europeans (and any that weren't would have originally been from the Middle East). And since your background is French and English, you probably have a lot less WHG than Kristiina, as has already been pointed out to you. That's just hard, cold logic.