Some say that the only reason everyone of a different race looks alike to whites is because we aren't of that race...

Some say that the only reason everyone of a different race looks alike to whites is because we aren't of that race, but could it be that whites are objectively easier to tell apart?

>whites: 5 distinct non-elderly hair colours (black, brown, orange, blonde, and very rarely silver)
>others: black hair only
>whites: 5 distinct eye colours (blue, grey, green, brown, black)
>others: brown and black only
>whites: can have anywhere from perfectly straight to tightly curled hair
>others: tend to have only one hair type, which is dependent on the race
>whites: light skin colour that allows features to create greater contrast, and below-surface colours to show slightly
>others: darker skin colour creates little contrast between direct light and shadow, below surface colours are completely hidden
>whites: light skin colour creates a big difference between tan and not tan
>others: don't noticably tan

So that's five variables that only whites have, and one feature that exaggerates any uniqueness.
I'd have a hard time believing that an asian can tell asians apart just as easily as a caucasian can tell caucasians apart.

Jap-Korean here.

You do all look alike.

The girls too, but I think they do it on purpose

>5 men to judge an entire race
10/10 user

Im asian and walking down the street in asia is like walking past many mirrors

I think you (and many other white-identifying individuals) are simply innatentive and have learned a way of seeing which obliterates the differences between non-whites. Fwiw, I grew up around y'all and you don't all look alike, except that you all tend to wear similar clothes and groom yourselves the same.

Also your observations sound dense as fuck, have you never left your house?

Sayyyyy OP - thats a mighty fine image ya got there. Second time today I have seen this character.

>disagrees
>does not make a point to the contrary
If you disagree with my observation that there are five more points of difference between two whites than between two individuals of a different race, then name some points of difference that whites don't have or I was wrong about only whites having.

>makes a bunch of generalizations
>believes people should argue with him

I'm not disagreeing with you, I actually think most people look alike, especially when you look at macro scale populations. But the way you're going about collating data is stupid as fuck and sounds like you do most of your research in a basement

You're also wrong about haircolor and eye color, as well as skin tone. It really just sounds like you didn't put any effort into these observations

For example (an easy one), populations in the Indian and South Pacific Oceans can have blonde, dense curly hair, as well as blue eyes. They possess little to no haplotype similarities to contemporary Europeans or even to indoeuropeans.

If you're gonna do ethnography and anthropology treat it like a scientific discipline, I disagree with your methodology more than anything.

Well, name another race where two healthy young individuals can have differing hair and eye colours.

Bad goyim! Delet!

How do you mean? I gave you the example of Micronesian and Indian Ocean indigenous peoples who possess phenotypes for hair and eye color not generally found among populations at their latitude

Idk, black Americans and Africans actually have a striking variety of hair colors, eye colors, and a pretty wide range of skin tones, varying from incredibly deep, almost blue black, all the way back to what at first glance would be considered a European or Caucasian trait.

Like I said in my first comment you just sound like you've had limited experience with people who don't look like you, and those limited experiences are being filtered into an explanation for something they can't possibly encapsulate

>assumes that post B, made 11 seconds after post A, would have taken post A into account
But anyway, Melanisians have a little more diversity in appearance, sure; but that's only one extra hair colour and one extra eye colour, still falling far short of the caucasian diversity of appearance.

The difference is mostly between populations though, not individuals.

Also, until recently, there were a lot of isolated populations of white people, giving them time to diverge in this way.

It's why redheads are getting rarer and rarer, other phenotypes are more dominant. If your argument is about genetic diversity, it falls apart. Especially when you take certain social and political factors into account (many western people of African descent have ancestors from a very narrow group of populations, for example)

user i wish most white people had these S-tier facial genetics. But its hotter than any other race.

Actually, again, this comes down to how you observe these individuals.

At the end of the day, the reason humans have such a huge diversity of phenotypes as a species is because for the bulk of our time as a species we have lived in small and isolated communities, generally made up of families who might only admix with an out group member once in a few generations if ever. This isolation over massive geographic distances plus directed breeding (slavery, laws about who and how people marry and reproduce, forced and voluntary movement, war, trade, religion) behaviors causes certain groups to look more or less similar than others.

Fair point, but shouldn't there then be some non-caucasian race which has a huge amount of diversity thanks to being a melting pot of many populations?

It's not like only whites are happy to breed with different-looking members of their own race.

It seems like when two somewhat homogenous non-white populations crossbreed, you just end up with another homogenous population; for example, the very distinctive African-Arabic look of Somalians.

Whereas two somewhat homogenous white populations crossbreeding will retain the genetic diversity of both populations.

I think it has a lot to do with geography as well as cultural differences. There may be some internal mechanism related to environment or diet that is creating the wider pool of observable phenotypes. It also might have a lot to do with which traits are dominant in a population. If one group has dominant dark skin, and the other group has traits for lighter tones, more individuals will have dark skin. In an area like Somalia/Ethiopia this leads to populations with hair and features generally seen in other groups, but an African set of skin tones (probably to protect from UV radiation). Humans are one of the most diverse and complex animals ever to live, we are only now beginning to understand how our biological forms are influenced by their environment, and in turn, how our cultures and psyches influence our physical forms and our environments

all that stuff you said about other races is simply not true. I can generally tell the difference between Chinese, Koreans, Viet, Japanese for example. I can differentiate between different Africans and could possibly provide an educated guess as to the origins of African Americans based on their phenotypes.

It's really just down to how observant an individual is. I am constantly scanning folks so it's not a big deal to tell if they're slavic vs latinate, or even potentially a country of origin based on phenotypes for anyone.

>I can tell the difference between different individuals of different populations
That's not the point, the point is that only whites can be closely related yet still look very different.

Of course you're going to get some clear differences between two populations of the same race.