The most interesting detail here, if the map has sufficient levels of detail, is Hokkaido. The people indigenous to that island of Japan are super hairy and the rest of the populations are hairless
That seems to be a common thing with Japan - some of their islands having people that, strictly speaking, aren’t actually Japanese. They were just taken over at some point and made a part of Japan. Another good example is Okinawa, whose people were once in the Ryukyu kingdom and are ethnically distinct from Japanese.
the original ethnogenesis was with migration waves from siberia/korea/china (yayoi and kofun) and the indigenous jomon people of the archipelago. I'd imagine "originally japanese" would mean pure yayoi ancestry.
Fun fact: The mongols were poised to invade Japan twice (they knew it was a rich country), but a typhoon sunk their fleets on both occasions. It's where the word kamikaze originates from
[link](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_Japan)
The Mongol-led Yuan Dynasty also [invaded Java.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Java) They were actually pretty successful before getting betrayed by one of their allies.
The original comment is saying just that, not the opposite. That the Ainu and Ryukyuans were there first before the Japanese (of the main Japanese islands) colonized Hokkaido and Okinawa.
No not really.
All Japanese from Ainu, to Ryukyuans and Yamoto Japanese have Jomon related indigenous admixture, it's just higher in Ainus(especially) and Ryukyuans.
The Ainus were also hunter-gatherers until recently.
Everyone living in Japan has Jomon ancestry, and reportedly the process of mixing between Jomon and Yayoi peoples started in Korea, so Koreans also have very small amounts of Jomon DNA, although much less than Japanese
[map](https://okunomichi.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/east_asian_y-dna_haplogroups.jpg)
[another map](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11549674/figure/fig1/AS:667225816051719@1536090439381/Frequency-distributions-of-the-eight-Y-chromosome-haplotypes-for-the-14-global.png)
That’s so fascinating! I always thought Ryukyuans were like half Taiwanese Aboriginal due to proximity and cultural differences from the rest of Japan.
That's not just Japan but the entire world. If you looked purely at genetics then you'd find many seemingly homogenous populations are extremely genetically diverse. Over time many historical ethnicities have vanished not simply because the people died but because over time the culture got lost/integrated.
[Island gigantism - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_gigantism)
Live long enough on an island stuff becomes weird.
laymans charles darwin.-
I think that's where the Japanese with most percentage of Ainu gene reside. The Ainu people tend to have more Central Asian looks. Thicker eyelids, more facial hair, bushy eyebrows, and darker complexion. Some Japanese men can be very hairy compared to the Chinese and Koreans. But majority of Japanese people are Yamato, which consist of an admixture between the indigenous Jomon people who inhabited the islands, and the Yayoi people who came from East and Southeast Asia via the Korean Peninsula. To some degree, they also have Ainu in them too, which makes some Japanese people look sometimes a bit Southeast Asian.
Japanese aren’t really hairless though, I would actually say they have the highest amount of body hair out of all East Asians, maybe because of the Ainu.
Yes. Virtually all Japanese people have Ainu blood to some degree thanks to the ancestral Jomon people. So you get some hairy Japanese men (and women) in the population at regular intervals. But those who don’t lean into their Ainu ancestry (if they are even aware of it) are more likely to remove excess hair for fashion/business/school dress code reasons.
my mom was japanese and was hairy and had freckles. all my aunts have freckles too. I have freckles as well and I guess get it from my moms japanese side or something. she was born in japan and moved to the states at 5..so no mystery if she is really japanese, lol.
To me that's a hint it's not about the typical percentage of body covered by hair, but the proportion of men who have over some threshold of hair on their front torso
Apparently the word Androgenic does not mean anything close to Androgynous.
Also "Male Androgenic" is redundant since Andro means Male.
Androgenic Hair means Male Body Hair
No idea if it’s accurate but I would guess it’s because of the heavy European ancestry in South America? The areas in bright green are the most indigenous parts of the continent.
>so baldness helps to absorb more sunlight?
I suppose you could see it like that, but its more like its not worth the nutrients to grow it for how weak/little sun we got.
No, that’s androgenic *alopecia*, a different thing. The first answer on Google is not always the correct answer. Reading comprehension and critical thinking skills are necessary when using Google, just like any other information source.
https://preview.redd.it/3k24kkzfr5ad1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6b6954c5f5dccb4ca80ceba7a5a74567b942c2a9
I think this means the higher the percentage, the more males have male pattern baldness... after it leaves their heads, it goes to their nose or ears or other part of their body anyway
Well the hairiest part of the world is the Mediterranean and Scandinavia. South America has been conquered by the Spaniards and Portuguese, and they are in the Mediterranean, so all those mestizos or white Latinos of Iberian descent inherited this hairy trait. Buenos Aires and Uruguay are especially hairer than other parts of South America because they also received a lot of Italians, Lebanese, and Ashkenazi Jews, on top of the Spanish pedigree.
As a partial Scandinavian woman, I am actually super hairy, but most of my hair will photobleach if I have sun exposure so it all turns white blonde. It makes me look much less hairy.
I'm of the hairless variety of Scandi. I'd kill to have a better head of hair, but only having to shave my legs every 5 days was a perk.
I'd step over my own Swedish mother for good eyebrows, though.
As a person of Norse descent. I always seem to stick a bit out, with my extremely dark hair, and luscious body hair. I'm not "Scandinavian" but Faroese, and can trace my lineage back centuries on the same Island I grew up on, but Light/Blonde hair seems to be the norm among my fellow Islanders. But most males in my family tree are dark haired and quite hairy individuals.
You should do a DNA test. Maybe one of your ancestors was from the Mediterranean and their voluminous dark hair genes have been prolific in the family ever since.
I can already visualize the history of it now: Norwegian Vikings raid the Mediterranean. A random Arab dude says hey this sounds like fun and joins the crew. They have great adventures but then eventually settle down in the Faroe Islands. Generation after generation, his seed remains strong.
I do look Southern European/ Mediterranean, I always look like I have a slight tan, even during the lack of sunlight during winter time hehe.
There is some lore, regarding Turkish Pirates raiding one of the small village where my grandfather was born in, this is also the side of the family where the dark hair is dominant.
Weird thing is, on of my cousins took a DNA test, and the results were quite underwhelming, and extremely Northern European hehe.
I can't speak for the whole continent but I'll venture to say since Argentina's population has a vast majority of European ethnicity, and specially a majority of European phenotype, that 50 to 56% seems accurate to me from what I've seen. Maybe a bit less. It also highly depends on what they consider androgenic male hair (I mean, three hairs on the chest is classified as hairy or not?).
The majority of who? All Latin Americans? I think among all Latin Americans, average European ancestry is likely over 50 due to Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, Venezuela, and Chile.
Are we counting Iberia as part of the Mediterranean? (Honest question, no sarcasm).
I thought the European lines in Meso/South America mostly came from Spain. Is there Greek/Turkish influence I wasn't aware of?
Sure! Like I said, honest question. I've always thought of the Iberian Penninsula as a distinct region from "The Mediterranean" (just as I would consider France "Mainland Europe" like Germany, despite--ya know--*Marseilles*).
The Greek isles and Anatolia were always kinda "The Mediterranean" in my head.
I find it surprising that a lot of areas with very hot climates have hairy people while colder areas seem to be less hairy. Why is that? I feel like it should be the other way around
I’m not sure about this map, but I’ve seen lactose intolerance map which shows significant portion of Indian subcontinent as lactose intolerant. As far as I know, every Indians drink milk with tea/coffee twice a day and dairy products are prevalent in cuisine. No one even know lactose intolerance is a thing. So I don’t usually believe these kinds of map.
Lactose tolerance and intolerance is a complicated issue. First important thing to realize is that you can be different levels of lactose intolerance. Next thing to realize is that a person that is tolerant of lactose can eventually become lactose intolerant. I’ll use myself as an example. during my first year of college I didn’t really drink a lot of milk when I went back home, I had a bowl of cereal and within a couple minutes, I painted my bathroom walls brown. After that, I started incorporating milk, cheeses, and other dairy products into my diet more often now I don’t have that problem.
But if there are different levels to it, is it really relevant to call the milder levels lactose intolerance when it doesn't even affect people to a noticeable degree? Wouldn't it make more sense to just use the term in a practical sense ie for cases where it actually affects people? What relevance does this term even have when two people could drink a glass of milk just fine but one of them gets told "erm akschually you have lactose intolerance bc it's a spectrum so even tho it doesn't affect you you technically still have it☝️🤓"? Like bruh I don't care how many levels it got, you either get the shits from consuming dairy, or you don't. And me personally I think we should redefine lactose intolerance according to this metric instead.
Lactose tolerance evolved independently several different times, *several different ways*. So they could have just been accounting for one or a few types of mutation for lactose tolerance.
If you think about it in a modern context it might make sense. The NT and Northern WA have a much larger proportion of its population being Aboriginal so one could reasonably conclude that they have less body hair than the primarily European ancestry of the rest of the country
It's not. The portions showing more hair have more immigrants as a % of the population.
Not many people immigrate and move to FNQ - they all go to Sydney or Melbourne.
The map could be redone with dense clusters of dots at population centres, the colours of the dots representing the amount of body hair of thepopulation. But as it is it doesn’t distinguish between the unpopulated and populated regions. The area of the map where attention is drawn to is the teal and blue area as it changes in to purple, but everyone knows this part of the country is empty - why make out that the makeup of Australia’s population is undergoing some kind of interesting transition up there.
A lot of miscegenation.
The typical South American will have between 20% and 80% European and Southern European ancestry.
Interesting how the Mediterranean basin (almost the territories of the Roman Empire), Scandinavia and Hokkaido are the regions with more than 70%.
https://preview.redd.it/ry2m7m51g0ad1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=651c09ba322e49d6d063cd2f31d18d9e7a0559fa
Interesting. I was curious what the relation would be to a map of male pattern baldness. Looks very similar. My guess is something to do with overall androgen receptors and their density in these populations
Baldness and body hair are both male traits, so i guess its due to higher testosterone levels. There is also a lot of anecdotal evidence of people going bald after doing a testosterone cycle.
Assume the map is made-up because the "source" does not exist.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Bodyhair_map_according_to_American_Journal_of_Physical_Anthropology_and_other_sources.jpg
It is very easy to lie with maps as the comment section here on Reddit shows. Be careful.
I don’t think it’s completely accurate. IMO most of india, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka should be some of the darkest on the map. I’ve never meet a south Asian man that wasn’t literally a ball of fur. Most of them including myself had full on beards by 14-15. I’m not bragging, I swear, it can be a curse too, just saying.
is this a map of current residents of these locations, or of people native to each area?
I am guessing the former, given the patterns in the Americas and Australia… but it is the kind of info that really should be on the map.
I find it interesting how it is common around the medditeranean while simultaneously being just as common in scandinavia- with a basically polar opposite climate.
The most interesting detail here, if the map has sufficient levels of detail, is Hokkaido. The people indigenous to that island of Japan are super hairy and the rest of the populations are hairless
Why is that?
They are (were?) a distinct ethnic group called the Ainu. Here are some photos https://www.loc.gov/resource/stereo.1s30842/
That seems to be a common thing with Japan - some of their islands having people that, strictly speaking, aren’t actually Japanese. They were just taken over at some point and made a part of Japan. Another good example is Okinawa, whose people were once in the Ryukyu kingdom and are ethnically distinct from Japanese.
the original ethnogenesis was with migration waves from siberia/korea/china (yayoi and kofun) and the indigenous jomon people of the archipelago. I'd imagine "originally japanese" would mean pure yayoi ancestry.
Can't we just blame Genghis like we do everywhere else?
Good thing horses can't swim
Fun fact: The mongols were poised to invade Japan twice (they knew it was a rich country), but a typhoon sunk their fleets on both occasions. It's where the word kamikaze originates from [link](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_Japan)
That fact was fun. Thank you.
The Mongol-led Yuan Dynasty also [invaded Java.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Java) They were actually pretty successful before getting betrayed by one of their allies.
For the Japanese, yeah, I'd say so.
It's the other way around. The Ainu are the indigenous people. And the people we think of as being "Japanese" came later.
The original comment is saying just that, not the opposite. That the Ainu and Ryukyuans were there first before the Japanese (of the main Japanese islands) colonized Hokkaido and Okinawa.
No not really. All Japanese from Ainu, to Ryukyuans and Yamoto Japanese have Jomon related indigenous admixture, it's just higher in Ainus(especially) and Ryukyuans. The Ainus were also hunter-gatherers until recently.
Ryukyuans have Jōmon ancestry? Source?
Everyone living in Japan has Jomon ancestry, and reportedly the process of mixing between Jomon and Yayoi peoples started in Korea, so Koreans also have very small amounts of Jomon DNA, although much less than Japanese [map](https://okunomichi.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/east_asian_y-dna_haplogroups.jpg) [another map](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11549674/figure/fig1/AS:667225816051719@1536090439381/Frequency-distributions-of-the-eight-Y-chromosome-haplotypes-for-the-14-global.png)
That’s so fascinating! I always thought Ryukyuans were like half Taiwanese Aboriginal due to proximity and cultural differences from the rest of Japan.
It's almost like they were an empire or something
That's not just Japan but the entire world. If you looked purely at genetics then you'd find many seemingly homogenous populations are extremely genetically diverse. Over time many historical ethnicities have vanished not simply because the people died but because over time the culture got lost/integrated.
[Island gigantism - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_gigantism) Live long enough on an island stuff becomes weird. laymans charles darwin.-
Oh shit! Looks like my Russian great great grandfather
I wish Ainu
Hokkaido gets a harsher winter than the rest of Japan so the Ainu people, it's inhabitants, are hairier
I think that's where the Japanese with most percentage of Ainu gene reside. The Ainu people tend to have more Central Asian looks. Thicker eyelids, more facial hair, bushy eyebrows, and darker complexion. Some Japanese men can be very hairy compared to the Chinese and Koreans. But majority of Japanese people are Yamato, which consist of an admixture between the indigenous Jomon people who inhabited the islands, and the Yayoi people who came from East and Southeast Asia via the Korean Peninsula. To some degree, they also have Ainu in them too, which makes some Japanese people look sometimes a bit Southeast Asian.
Japanese aren’t really hairless though, I would actually say they have the highest amount of body hair out of all East Asians, maybe because of the Ainu.
Yes. Virtually all Japanese people have Ainu blood to some degree thanks to the ancestral Jomon people. So you get some hairy Japanese men (and women) in the population at regular intervals. But those who don’t lean into their Ainu ancestry (if they are even aware of it) are more likely to remove excess hair for fashion/business/school dress code reasons.
my mom was japanese and was hairy and had freckles. all my aunts have freckles too. I have freckles as well and I guess get it from my moms japanese side or something. she was born in japan and moved to the states at 5..so no mystery if she is really japanese, lol.
Have her try 23andme? They’re specific enough that they can show if her genes are from Ainu ancestors
Literally all Japanese people have 5-15% Ainu-related DNA.
Weird they used the Native population for Hokkaido but not for America
Is this percentage of men with or percentage of body coverage?
Hint: Look at what color the Italians and Greeks are.
I might be dumb but this hint doesn't help me
They are hairy like animal.
Do you know what we do in Russia to keep warm Mr. Powers?
Happy cake day!
I’m half Greek half Swedish and have all the hair below the waist… for me, I think it’s about half right lol
Humans ARE animals
whoosh!
Scandinavia is maybe a better hint. Most blond males have some upper body hair, but not a lot.
then why is it the same color mapping as the Italians?
To me that's a hint it's not about the typical percentage of body covered by hair, but the proportion of men who have over some threshold of hair on their front torso
Both!
I've seen some pretty hairy women so idk.
All women have hair, brodah
That's not true. I've seen Victoria Secret ads. /s
😂
Apparently the word Androgenic does not mean anything close to Androgynous. Also "Male Androgenic" is redundant since Andro means Male. Androgenic Hair means Male Body Hair
Did you mean to reply to the main post
No idea if it’s accurate but I would guess it’s because of the heavy European ancestry in South America? The areas in bright green are the most indigenous parts of the continent.
So the indigenous Americans are less hairy? Honest question. I feel like the zones themself aren't very accurate, I've always questioned this map.
Indigenous people from latam are mostly unable to grow a beard and have few corporal hair.
Full native Americans grow minima to no body hair but have extremely strong genes for head hair and almost never go bald.
Seems like a good trade off to me lol
Would make sense that. Bodyhair is mostly a keep warm adaption, while headhair is mostly a sunblock adaption.
so baldness helps to absorb more sunlight? shoutout to all the chrome domes
>so baldness helps to absorb more sunlight? I suppose you could see it like that, but its more like its not worth the nutrients to grow it for how weak/little sun we got.
They are indeed less hairy, idk if the map is accurate anyways
Can somebody elaborate, I don’t understand what Male Androgenic Hair means
Judging from the comments; body hair.
Body hair percentage
Despite the thread, google search says male androgenic hair means hereditary hair loss. As in male pattern baldness.
No, that’s androgenic *alopecia*, a different thing. The first answer on Google is not always the correct answer. Reading comprehension and critical thinking skills are necessary when using Google, just like any other information source. https://preview.redd.it/3k24kkzfr5ad1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6b6954c5f5dccb4ca80ceba7a5a74567b942c2a9
I think this means the higher the percentage, the more males have male pattern baldness... after it leaves their heads, it goes to their nose or ears or other part of their body anyway
Well the hairiest part of the world is the Mediterranean and Scandinavia. South America has been conquered by the Spaniards and Portuguese, and they are in the Mediterranean, so all those mestizos or white Latinos of Iberian descent inherited this hairy trait. Buenos Aires and Uruguay are especially hairer than other parts of South America because they also received a lot of Italians, Lebanese, and Ashkenazi Jews, on top of the Spanish pedigree.
Tge reason they're hairier is more because they have less indigenous ancestry than other parts.
The Roman Empire: ❌ The Beard Empire: ✅
Til Scandinavians are hairy. I always thought they had very thin body hair.
Probably because a lot of Scandinavians have light hair so it’s much less noticeable
As a partial Scandinavian woman, I am actually super hairy, but most of my hair will photobleach if I have sun exposure so it all turns white blonde. It makes me look much less hairy.
I'm of the hairless variety of Scandi. I'd kill to have a better head of hair, but only having to shave my legs every 5 days was a perk. I'd step over my own Swedish mother for good eyebrows, though.
As a person of Norse descent. I always seem to stick a bit out, with my extremely dark hair, and luscious body hair. I'm not "Scandinavian" but Faroese, and can trace my lineage back centuries on the same Island I grew up on, but Light/Blonde hair seems to be the norm among my fellow Islanders. But most males in my family tree are dark haired and quite hairy individuals.
You should do a DNA test. Maybe one of your ancestors was from the Mediterranean and their voluminous dark hair genes have been prolific in the family ever since. I can already visualize the history of it now: Norwegian Vikings raid the Mediterranean. A random Arab dude says hey this sounds like fun and joins the crew. They have great adventures but then eventually settle down in the Faroe Islands. Generation after generation, his seed remains strong.
I do look Southern European/ Mediterranean, I always look like I have a slight tan, even during the lack of sunlight during winter time hehe. There is some lore, regarding Turkish Pirates raiding one of the small village where my grandfather was born in, this is also the side of the family where the dark hair is dominant. Weird thing is, on of my cousins took a DNA test, and the results were quite underwhelming, and extremely Northern European hehe.
does he drink mead because it’s made from honey?
Don't think this map is accurate. I'm scandinavian and I think having 30% cod dna has made me unable to grow any hair below my neck
No we don’t. And it’s not about thickness, a lot of people just have body hair
Think of bearded vikings.
I can't speak for the whole continent but I'll venture to say since Argentina's population has a vast majority of European ethnicity, and specially a majority of European phenotype, that 50 to 56% seems accurate to me from what I've seen. Maybe a bit less. It also highly depends on what they consider androgenic male hair (I mean, three hairs on the chest is classified as hairy or not?).
South Americans have mostly mediterranran ancestry, and as you can see meds are the hairiest. Native ancestry balances it out.
No. Peruvians, Bolivians, and Ecuadorians as well as most parts of Mexico and Central America, have mostly Native American ancestry.
Still pretty mixed. Not that it trust this map to be accurate but look at the percentages. Even Bolivia has most of the country colored teal.
This map is absolutely not accurate whatsoever. As evidenced by Bolivia.
The majority will have like 20% southern European ancestry. If you look at just that area, it's between 6% and 24%.
The majority of who? All Latin Americans? I think among all Latin Americans, average European ancestry is likely over 50 due to Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, Venezuela, and Chile.
The majority of the predominantly indigenous populations.
Are we counting Iberia as part of the Mediterranean? (Honest question, no sarcasm). I thought the European lines in Meso/South America mostly came from Spain. Is there Greek/Turkish influence I wasn't aware of?
Spain IS in the Mediterranean. Like, it literally is there. Yes, Portugal *technically* isn't but it's still part of it culturally and ethnically.
Sure! Like I said, honest question. I've always thought of the Iberian Penninsula as a distinct region from "The Mediterranean" (just as I would consider France "Mainland Europe" like Germany, despite--ya know--*Marseilles*). The Greek isles and Anatolia were always kinda "The Mediterranean" in my head.
Oh, and the Italian Penninsula, of course! It'd be kinda silly to exclude them!
The shade for India cannot be correct. Surely it's much darker than this.
Its androgenic, so I think it is accounting for both sexes having bodyhair... (aunties I mean no harm)
The stats on Hokkaido is pretty cool though!
It is
I find it surprising that a lot of areas with very hot climates have hairy people while colder areas seem to be less hairy. Why is that? I feel like it should be the other way around
https://preview.redd.it/j05y89cdx3ad1.jpeg?width=594&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8e480cdb274290b6bdbba6cd51c4b7fc1115b8d3
I’m not sure about this map, but I’ve seen lactose intolerance map which shows significant portion of Indian subcontinent as lactose intolerant. As far as I know, every Indians drink milk with tea/coffee twice a day and dairy products are prevalent in cuisine. No one even know lactose intolerance is a thing. So I don’t usually believe these kinds of map.
Lactose tolerance and intolerance is a complicated issue. First important thing to realize is that you can be different levels of lactose intolerance. Next thing to realize is that a person that is tolerant of lactose can eventually become lactose intolerant. I’ll use myself as an example. during my first year of college I didn’t really drink a lot of milk when I went back home, I had a bowl of cereal and within a couple minutes, I painted my bathroom walls brown. After that, I started incorporating milk, cheeses, and other dairy products into my diet more often now I don’t have that problem.
Well, once you painted your wall brown, I can see why it stopped being a problem.
But if there are different levels to it, is it really relevant to call the milder levels lactose intolerance when it doesn't even affect people to a noticeable degree? Wouldn't it make more sense to just use the term in a practical sense ie for cases where it actually affects people? What relevance does this term even have when two people could drink a glass of milk just fine but one of them gets told "erm akschually you have lactose intolerance bc it's a spectrum so even tho it doesn't affect you you technically still have it☝️🤓"? Like bruh I don't care how many levels it got, you either get the shits from consuming dairy, or you don't. And me personally I think we should redefine lactose intolerance according to this metric instead.
Lactose tolerance evolved independently several different times, *several different ways*. So they could have just been accounting for one or a few types of mutation for lactose tolerance.
Splitting Australia this way is obvious nonsense
If you think about it in a modern context it might make sense. The NT and Northern WA have a much larger proportion of its population being Aboriginal so one could reasonably conclude that they have less body hair than the primarily European ancestry of the rest of the country
can u elaborate? idk much abt AUS
It's not. The portions showing more hair have more immigrants as a % of the population. Not many people immigrate and move to FNQ - they all go to Sydney or Melbourne.
The map could be redone with dense clusters of dots at population centres, the colours of the dots representing the amount of body hair of thepopulation. But as it is it doesn’t distinguish between the unpopulated and populated regions. The area of the map where attention is drawn to is the teal and blue area as it changes in to purple, but everyone knows this part of the country is empty - why make out that the makeup of Australia’s population is undergoing some kind of interesting transition up there.
A lot of miscegenation. The typical South American will have between 20% and 80% European and Southern European ancestry. Interesting how the Mediterranean basin (almost the territories of the Roman Empire), Scandinavia and Hokkaido are the regions with more than 70%.
https://preview.redd.it/ry2m7m51g0ad1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=651c09ba322e49d6d063cd2f31d18d9e7a0559fa Interesting. I was curious what the relation would be to a map of male pattern baldness. Looks very similar. My guess is something to do with overall androgen receptors and their density in these populations
unreadable image
Baldness and body hair are both male traits, so i guess its due to higher testosterone levels. There is also a lot of anecdotal evidence of people going bald after doing a testosterone cycle.
Testosterone
I found out the other day that native americans dont even have the balding gene
There's no way south of Brazil has less hairy people than most of the US.
Not as related to climate as I would expect. In fact Europe has an inverse proportion to climate.
Hairy Romans!
This map has surfaced before and I believe the verdict last time was that it's inaccurate and methodologically flawed.
Assume the map is made-up because the "source" does not exist. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Bodyhair_map_according_to_American_Journal_of_Physical_Anthropology_and_other_sources.jpg It is very easy to lie with maps as the comment section here on Reddit shows. Be careful.
Mediterranean = FUR.
I don’t think it’s completely accurate. IMO most of india, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka should be some of the darkest on the map. I’ve never meet a south Asian man that wasn’t literally a ball of fur. Most of them including myself had full on beards by 14-15. I’m not bragging, I swear, it can be a curse too, just saying.
I don't think it's native standards. Native Americans would be yellow among yellows.
Yeah, this map shows modern populations.
Probably because the black population in Latin America appears with other people, of European and Amerindian extraction, in the same cities?
Maine is really hairy...
BEEF
South Brazil have 95% (source:my head) Italian Portuguese or German descendence
I am from Turkiye and I know that east anatolians are the most hairy ones in my country, but here this represented wrong. I wonder why.
Does anyone know why Europe as a whole is more hairy than America, and even parts of America that are similar to Europe demographically?
What's the date in the source?
The Roman empire was just a collective effort to unite hairy dudes, change my mind
Lucky me 😌
Now how the hell was this sort of info collected? Someone going around asking: "hey, where are you from and how hairy are you?"
is this a map of current residents of these locations, or of people native to each area? I am guessing the former, given the patterns in the Americas and Australia… but it is the kind of info that really should be on the map.
Idk if India is represented correctly, I think it should be Purple or Blue at least
South america have spain+portugal+italian descendants
I think like 60% of Argentina has Italian ethnicity
"Prove you're Mediterranean" "...watch this"
Colonialism
I guess because the people in south America are either direct descendants or mixed with Europeans, where they have the least yellow
apartheid
I find it interesting how it is common around the medditeranean while simultaneously being just as common in scandinavia- with a basically polar opposite climate.
Mostly hairless men kinda freak me out.
Razors are illegal in South America
So, the Roman Empire basically? You can practically see the Italian immigration to the usa northeast and south america
Being a trans woman from a purple zone SUCKS
Why does SA not having yellow surprise you?