DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Human Evolution
*****************************************************
#Post#: 8266--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Sexual Dimorphism Preferences
By: 90sRetroFan Date: August 23, 2021, 10:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What is going on with mainstream tastes?
HTML https://us.yahoo.com/news/thylane-blondeau-most-beautiful-girl-213356556.html
[quote]Thylane Blondeau, ‘the most beautiful girl in the world,’
rocks a bikini while enjoying a getaway with beau
...
In 2018, her looks earned her a new title – that of "Most
Beautiful Face." The ranking was done by independentcritics.com,
specifically by professional film critic TC Chandler.[/quote]
This??
[img width=853
height=1280]
HTML https://www.gotceleb.com/wp-content/uploads/photos/thylane-blondeau/l-oreal-runway-show-in-paris/Thylane-Blondeau:-LOreal-Runway-Show-in-Paris--22.jpg[/img]
WTF?!
#Post#: 10325--------------------------------------------------
Face Shapes and Preferences
By: Zea_mays Date: December 29, 2021, 9:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Differences in how people judge face attractiveness can
be reliably measured
Individual face preferences are primarily explained by
differences in environments
In contrast, face identity recognition is explained primarily by
genetic variation
Although certain characteristics of human faces are broadly
considered more attractive (e.g., symmetry, averageness), people
also routinely disagree with each other on the relative
attractiveness of faces. That is, to some significant degree,
beauty is in the “eye of the beholder.” Here, we investigate the
origins of these individual differences in face preferences
using a twin design, allowing us to estimate the relative
contributions of genetic and environmental variation to
individual face attractiveness judgments or face preferences. We
first show that individual face preferences (IP) can be reliably
measured and are readily dissociable from other types of
attractiveness judgments (e.g., judgments of scenes, objects).
Next, we show that individual face preferences result primarily
from environments that are unique to each individual. This is in
striking contrast to individual differences in face identity
recognition, which result primarily from variations in genes
[1]. We thus complete an etiological double dissociation between
two core domains of social perception (judgments of identity
versus attractiveness) within the same visual stimulus (the
face).
[...]
Selecting two participants at random produced an average of only
48% agreement (and 52% disagreement) in face preferences (see
Figure 1F), even after removing apparent disagreements that
could be explained away as self-inconsistency (Supplemental
Information). This estimate is consistent with previous
literature [11, 12] as well as with the everyday experience that
on the one hand, fashion models can “make a fortune with their
good looks,” while on the other hand, friends can “endlessly
debate about who is attractive and who is not” [11].
[...]
Next, we estimated the contributions of genetic and
environmental factors to face IP by comparing the correlation of
face IP scores among MZ twins with the correlation of face IP
scores among DZ twins. Although MZ and DZ twins share family
environment to a similar extent, MZ twins share, on average,
twice as much of their genetic variation as DZ twins. The
correlations for face IP scores between MZ twins and between DZ
twins can thus be used to estimate the proportion of variation
in face IP that can be explained by variations in genes, shared
environments, and unshared environments. We calculated a maximum
likelihood correlation of 0.22 (95% CI: 0.14–0.29) for MZ twins
and 0.09 (95% CI: −0.06–0.24) for DZ twins. These two
correlations did not significantly differ (Fisher r-to-z
transformation; p = 0.1), indicating that most of the variance
in face IP is likely attributable to environmental
factors.[/quote]
HTML https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)01019-2
Of that 52% (the "individual preference" of which faces an
individual finds attractive), they are estimating it is ~1/4
determined by genetic instinct/blood memory, and ~3/4 by
"environment":
[quote]Controlling for age and sex, the ACE model attributed 22%
of variance to (A) additive genetic factors, 0% to (C) shared
environmental factors, and 78% to (E) individual or unshared
environment and/or measurement error (see Figure 2B and Table
1).[/quote]
[quote]But does this environmental influence act specifically on
face attractiveness judgments? Alternatively, it might act
broadly on any judgment that involves a face or on any social
judgment. As a strong test of specificity, we consider the case
of face identity recognition. Face attractiveness judgments and
face identity recognition both involve social evaluation of
faces, in the visual domain. Moreover, both require processing
of invariant face characteristics, which are known to rely upon
inferior occipital and inferior temporal brain regions [23], and
deficits in both have been found to coexist in patients [23, 24,
25]. If the etiology of face identity processing were to differ
from that of face IP, then that would provide strong evidence
that the observed environmental effect is specific not only to
social stimuli in general, or to faces in particular, or even to
judgments of invariant face characteristics, but rather to a
particular subset of judgments of invariant face
characteristics. ... Yet despite equal precision of measurement,
a sample drawn from the same population, and similarly robust
evidence for independence from various non-face categories, we
found little to no impact of environment on face recognition
ability. Genetic variation accounted for most or all of the
reliable face recognition variance, in contrast with face IP
(68% versus 22% heritability; p of difference < 1E−14; see
Figure 2C and Table 1). Indeed, looking across the behavioral
genetic literature, face IP is among the most environmental
objectively measured behavioral traits, whereas face identity
recognition is among the most heritable [1, 27].[/quote]
Pay close attention to the second paragraph below. In other
words, lower exposure to media or propaganda would allow innate
genetic preferences to assert themselves more strongly:
[quote]Previous evidence has indicated that preferences for
particular faces or face characteristics are shaped by a range
of factors, including personality preferences [28], the rater’s
own facial characteristics [29], features of the socioeconomic
and cultural environment [30, 31, 32, 33, 34], previous visual
experience [35, 36, 37, 38, 39], and history of social learning
[19, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44].
[...]
Our study was conducted with a relatively homogeneous sample of
Australian twins [45]. Given the sociocultural homogeneity of
our sample, the low contribution of genetic variance to face IP
is particularly noteworthy: estimates of genetic contributions
tend to be higher where environments are less variable
[46].[/quote]
I.e. face preferences from peer pressure/media/propaganda
exposure can easily outweigh genetically-determined preferences
for faces, and change preferences from generation to generation
(or even among siblings if they are exposed to different media):
[quote]Our results further establish that the important
environments are individual specific; that is, they are not
consistent across family members.[/quote]
I am skeptical that they have definitively demonstrated that
face preferences are primarily a product of "environmental
conditions", since, you know:
[quote]Assortative mating is a mating pattern and a form of
sexual selection in which individuals with similar phenotypes
mate with one another more frequently than would be expected
under a random mating pattern.[/quote]
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assortative_mating
But this study's finding does suggest that Eurocentric beauty
standards and preferences for high sexual dimorphism in the
media would indeed inflict significant psychological damage on
individuals' innate preferences!
Some additional considerations: this study only used individuals
from Australia (i.e. a highly Westernized nation with high media
exposure). Additionally, I focused on the potential media
exposure has to influence people's preferences, but innocent
things like a childhood crush could also be an environmental
influence on an individual's preferences. (The study authors do
not talk about what potential "environmental" influences would
be). I imagine, on average, throughout all individuals, media
exposure would be the most significant "environmental
influence", although for some individuals, an influence from
personal experiences like a crush or whatever could outweigh the
preferences presented to them in the media.
Also, it would be interesting to examine the "low agreement
participants" (see Figure 1E), whose face ratings highly
differed from the average ratings. Do these individuals have
particularly strong blood memory in other ways (e.g. are they
highly tribalist or anti-tribalist?); do the physical traits of
these individuals tend to better correspond to a certain
face/body shape (afterall, the average person is just average
and does not have an extreme correspondence to any face shape
archetype)?
Notice even in the "high agreement participant" in Figure 1D,
the average rating for one of the faces was 3.5, but they rated
that face as 7 (which was the highest rating allowed). Analyzing
outliers like that can be very insightful, but unfortunately it
was overlooked.
HTML https://els-jbs-prod-cdn.jbs.elsevierhealth.com/cms/attachment/b3916683-1ef6-4dff-99dc-3ee0bc352ef4/gr1.jpg
(I think this pie chart suggests that 50% of facial
attractiveness comes from things like geometry, proportion,
health, etc. which would be universally considered attractive
(labelled "common preference") and then 50% of facial
attractiveness comes down to whether an individual finds the
face attractive or not? If I'm interpreting that correctly.)
Lastly, the study doesn't seem to describe the faces used in the
study (e.g. whether there were any real faces or if they were
all uncanny valley computer-generated mesh faces with no hair,
or those face composite images, etc.). Nor do they seem to
describe what the test for recognizing "face identity" was.
[quote]Stimulus sources: Neutral face stimuli were taken from
four sources: (1) the MIT face database, which Bronstad and
Russell [S7] used to look at similarity in face preferences
between siblings, friends, and spouses (we used all 74 of their
images for the pilot, then reduced to 50 images for final
version of test), (2) the Glasgow Unfamiliar Face Database
(GUFD) [S8] (140 images selected for the pilot, reduced to 50
images for the final test), (3) GenHead software (140 new images
generated for the pilot, reduced to 50 images for the final
test), and (4) several databases including the Facial
Recognition Technology (FERET) Database [S9], the NimStim Set of
Facial Expressions [S10], and the Karolinska Directed Emotional
Faces (KDEF) [S11] (140 images selected for the pilot, reduced
to 50 images for the final test). Faces from these four sources
were administered in separate blocks in both pilot study and
twin study.[/quote]
#Post#: 10351--------------------------------------------------
Re: Face Shapes and Preferences
By: 90sRetroFan Date: December 30, 2021, 9:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure I like the methodology of the study, which is
based on getting people to comparatively rate a large number of
pre-selected faces, none of which are likely to be their
personal favourites, and hence does not really reveal their
highest facial ideal, but merely determines their unenthusiastic
preferences between probably mediocre options. I would find it
much more deeply informative to get people to simply post their
personal favourites (please feel free to do so in this topic!),
just as in casual conversation if I want to learn about the
other person's aesthetics, I wouldn't ask them: "Which face do
you prefer out of those from the table next to ours?"; I would
ask: "Whom do you consider to be the most beautiful person you
have ever seen?"
I would be particularly interested in how someone's answer to my
above question changes over time. If someone's personal
favourite is still the same now as it was during their
childhood, they are likely to have a strong blood memory.
Whereas if their personal favourite has changed many times over
the years, they are likely to be more heavily influenced by
other factors (since their genes have remained unchanged).
"But this study's finding does suggest that Eurocentric beauty
standards and preferences for high sexual dimorphism in the
media would indeed inflict significant psychological damage on
individuals' innate preferences!"
Yes, but then at least we can expect media adversarial to
Eurocentric beauty standards to also be influential to some
degree by the same token. So let's start building up a
collection of such media right here!
#Post#: 10362--------------------------------------------------
Re: Face Shapes and Preferences
By: guest55 Date: December 31, 2021, 3:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't find most humans attractive at all by looks alone. There
has to be something else going on with their personality to even
catch my eye, I've noticed. I think most humans are quite ugly
actually. I think many non-humans look more pleasing to the eye
than humans, but not in a sexual way either. Humans for the most
part are quite boring I feel, physically especially. Then again
I've never really been in a relationship with a human either,
nor do I have any real human friends....
Perhaps this is why I have such a hard time relating to this
type of material?
#Post#: 10376--------------------------------------------------
Re: Face Shapes and Preferences
By: 90sRetroFan Date: January 1, 2022, 10:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I see what you are saying, but our initial aim here is
relatively unambitious; it is simply to counter the Eurocentric
messaging often found in media.
One big problem is that the actual Eurocentrists often accuse
others of being Eurocentrist, thus creating confusion. For
example, non-Western animation artists are frequently accused of
Eurocentrism by Westerners who claim that the artists draw their
characters to look "white" (despite them being "non-white"
storywise). Actually, it is the accusers who are the
Eurocentrists by presuming that the characters are drawn to look
"white" when in reality the characters are merely drawn to look
beautiful, because in the accusers' (not the artists') minds,
beautiful = "white". Fortunately, eventually someone decided to
debunk the accusers once and for all, showing that in fact the
artists' own idea of beauty is explicitly not "white"-inspired
(plus we see yet again how absurd the term "white" is, when the
"non-white" models' skin colours are nearer to optical white
than the "white" models' skin colours):
HTML http://aryanism.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/1504862869776-1024x999.jpg
This kind of thing is what we should be doing also.
#Post#: 11767--------------------------------------------------
Re: Face Shapes and Preferences
By: 90sRetroFan Date: March 6, 2022, 9:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
While on the subject of Harvey Weinstein, here is a face collage
of his accusers:
[img width=1280
height=720]
HTML https://e3.365dm.com/17/10/1600x900/skynews-harvey-weinstein-accusers_4125551.jpg?20171011113929[/img]
(Details:
HTML https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-41580010
)
HTML https://pbs.twimg.com/media/En9jYfYW8AA_k4T.jpg
#Post#: 12010--------------------------------------------------
Re: Face Shapes and Preferences
By: Zea_mays Date: March 14, 2022, 1:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is an older study and it will be interesting to see what
follow ups have been done. The results are that (1) individuals
tend to assume people who look alike are couples and (2) the
individuals who look alike actually are more likely to be
couples.
The "self seeking like" hypothesis of this author is comparable
to what we have been generally calling 'blood memory' and 'race
formation through convergent evolution'.
[quote]The interpretation of evidence for assortative mating is
controversial (Moore 1992). Data can be interpreted in the light
of incest avoidance mechanisms or in that of optimizing
outbreeding. Living organisms seem to optimize rather than
maximize outbreeding (Bateson 1983). That is, mate choice
mechanisms avoid maximizing outbreeding and inbreeding at the
same time. A complementary theory to an
incest-avoidance-outbreeding equilibrium is the optimization of
the working of sex (Jaffe 1999, 2000, 2002). This theory accepts
that genetic similarity is not only achieved through familiar
proximity, and recognizes that genetic relatedness may exist
among individuals with no familiar relationship between them.
Therefore, assortative mating of the kind “self seeking like”
may achieve reproduction between genetically similar mates,
favoring the stabilization of genes supporting social behavior,
with no kin relationship among them (Jaffe 2001).
[...]
Couples faces resemble each other much more than random pair
formation would suggest (Griffiths and Kunz 1973, Zajonc et al
1987, Hinsz 1989). Similarities between faces are not likely to
arise as a result of pair formation or environmental factors
(Rice and Borecki 2001), as facial features have a strong
genetic basis (Savoye et al. 1998). Facial resemblance between
couples has been extensively reviewed recently (Penton-Voak and
Perrett 2000) and can certainly be viewed as an adaptive trait,
product of evolutionary forces and not an experimental artefact.
[...]
The “self seeking like” hypothesis, assumes a multidimensional
space for individual preferences so that every “self” is unique.
Data on assortative pairing based on facial visual cues,
favoring the “self seeking like” hypothesis, include the finding
by DeBruine (2002) that facial resemblance enhances trust. That
is, inborn psychological mechanisms originally evolved for kin
selection and mate selection seem to serve as a basis of other
more advanced developments of social behavior.[/quote]
(I think plenty of barbarians are still stuck in the caveman age
of kin selection.)
[quote]A variant of the competition hypothesis is provided by
the matching hypothesis, which proposes that we don’t seek the
most physically attractive person but that we are attracted to
individuals who match us in terms of physical attraction (Kalick
and Hamilton 1986).
[...]
That is, if a universal sense of beauty creates a basis for a
universal scale of attractiveness, then pairing would proceed
from the most attractive extreme downwards in an assortative
fashion: the best pair up with the best, then the second-best
pair up, and so on. On the other hand, similarity has no
universal extremes. If assortative mating is based on
similarities (other or in addition to attractiveness), then
paring would not form a hierarchical linear scale of
attractiveness. Thus, if theoretical predictions about
assortative mating are correct, and physical features of faces
are largely determined by genetic factors, we should detect
assortative mating based on facial visual cues. If assortative
pairing is the outcome of competition for the most attractive
partner, partners in a couple should have similar levels of
attractiveness, and little heterogeneities in level of
attractiveness between partners of couples should be expected.
Here we present evidence that assortative mating based on facial
visual cues occurs in human populations, and that these facial
similarities seem to be the product of “self seeking like”
rather than of the competition for the most attractive
accessible partner.[/quote]
[quote]We photographed 36 randomly selected couples,
[...]
To assess the existence of resemblance between the faces of
couples among the target subjects, the photographs of the males
were placed on a table and those of the females were randomly
shuffled. The test subjects (over 100 volunteers at the
universities in Caracas and Mérida) had to assign each of the
photographs of female target subjects to one of the males.
[...]
The amount of correct guesses, i.e., joining photographs of male
and female partners of the same couple, did not differ between
test subjects asked to "Choose the female to which the male is
most likely to be married" and test subjects asked to "Choose
the female that is most likely to be a sibling to the male"
[...]
In order to simplify the tests and reduce the rejection of test
subjects to participate, we built 6 pools of 6 couples (i.e. 12
target subjects each) ... Test subjects were then presented with
the 6 photos of the faces (or parts of faces) of the target
males placed on a table, and they had to assign the randomly
shuffled photos of the 6 target females to their
partners.[/quote]
They show a photo of one of the sets of 6 couples. In addition
to asking to match whole faces, they asked people to match eyes,
mouths, and noses.
[quote]Random guessing under this scenario for either 36 pairs
or 6 pairs gives in average one correct guess per test subject.
[...]
The number of correct guesses, i.e. guessed pairs of photographs
corresponding to actual couples, made by tests subjects was far
larger than expected by random guessing in most experiments.
When females were provided with the photos of the target faces
of 36 couples, they guessed correctly an average of 2.5 couples
(Significantly different from random, n = 25 test fem ales, p <
0.0001, Chi-square = 132). Male test subjects placed in front of
the same task managed to identify correctly only an average of
0.94 couples (Not different from random, n= 18 test males,
p=0.6, Chi-square = 15). The amount of correct guesses made by
female test subjects was significantly higher than those made by
male test subjects (p < 0.003, chi-square = 38).
When the test was simplified, so that only the photos of faces
of 6 couples were presented at the same time, this difference
between the number of correctly guessed couples achieved by
female and male test subjects disappeared (p = 0.11, Chi-square
= 21). The average number of correctly guessed couples was 1.71
and 1.91 for female and male test subjects respectively
(Significantly different from random in both cases, n = 35 and
21, p < 0.0001 in both cases).[/quote]
Since the test subjects literally know nothing about the people
in the photographs, this is really a test of the viewers'
aesthetic preferences rather than anything to do with the actual
couples' choices.
They are basically being asked "who would look the best when
paired together?" This aesthetic preference is taken to the
extreme in cartoons, when couples are often drawn in the same
exaggerated style (e.g. imagine all the cartoons where a couple
are both drawn as fat spheres or absurdly lanky, in order to
make the point that the characters are to be associated with one
another.)
For cartoons, I can't think of a better example at the moment,
but note how the family is drawn to look more similar to each
other than their own child!
HTML https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-m41n89tZGwA/T4glik44h3I/AAAAAAAAAEg/v4qLhYlQ5Cw/s400/564px-SpongeBob.Baby_and_Parents.png
HTML https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/spongebob/images/7/7e/GrandmaSB.PNG/revision/latest?cb=20120707202346
[quote]Of the 36 target couples, 64% were guessed more than once
(chance) and 44% more than two times (Fourth column of Table
4).[/quote]
Table 4 shows that 1/3 of the couples were correctly guessed 0
times. 7 of the couples were correctly guessed 8 or more times,
with the highest being guessed correctly 18 times! In other
words, some of the couples live up to aesthetic archetypes, and
others do not.
I think 43 individuals were tasked with guessing the couples in
this particular experiment, so 18 correct guesses means 42% of
people got that couple correct! This couple is shown in the
image in Figure 1. I am kind of surprised, since they do not
appear to be the most similar to me.
[quote]The cumulative evidence presented here favors the
hypothesis that humans search for couples based on “self seeks
like”, using a narcissistic psychological algorithm in assessing
the appropriate mate. Yet passive assortative mating could also
explain our results. Passive assortative mating occurs when, due
to population viscosity, reproduction occurs among spatially
proximate individuals that are probably close or distant
relatives. In the active sort, individuals choose their mates
based on similar phenotypic traits, which reflect similar genes.
In both cases the result is assortative mating or breeding among
mates that possess similar genes.
Our results showed that females are better than males in
assessing facial resemblance between individuals when a large
number of choices are presented to test subjects. This
phenomenon is congruent with the fact that females have a much
finer discriminatory ability than males (Briceño and
Jaffe1997).[/quote]
In true academic fashion, the author hits us with "we couldn't
actually prove assortative mating in the manner we hypothesize
is happening, despite hyping it up the entire paper." But the
study does provide evidence that people viewing faces have a
preference to match similar-looking ones together.
Lastly, I found it amusing that the paper also included this
quote. As we know, the "public taste" is quite poor.
[quote]Humans place much weight on the visual aspect of faces.
Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519) wrote in his notebook, when
referring to how to select beautiful faces to paint, that the
artist should search for faces regarded as beautiful by the
public rather than by himself, as his own wit might deceive him
as it will lead him to look for faces similar to himself. Thus,
if he has an ugly face, he will paint ugly faces, unless he
searches for the public taste (Da Vinci 1999).[/quote]
Liliana Alvarez and Klaus Jaffe. (2004). Narcissism Guides Mate
Selection: Humans Mate Assortatively, as Revealed by Facial
Resemblance, following an Algorithm of "Self Seeking Like".
Evolutionary Psychology, 2(1): 177-194.
HTML https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232583713_Narcissism_Guides_Mate_Selection_Humans_Mate_Assortatively_as_Revealed_by_Facial_Resemblance_following_an_Algorithm_of_Self_Seeking_Like
#Post#: 12176--------------------------------------------------
Re: Psychological decolonization
By: rp Date: March 20, 2022, 12:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
How East Asian beauty standards are different to the west:
HTML https://youtu.be/8s27q47qInA
(Contrast the Aryan face in the thumbnail side by side with non
Aryan face)
#Post#: 12262--------------------------------------------------
Re: Face Shapes and Preferences
By: 90sRetroFan Date: March 25, 2022, 12:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"(Contrast the Aryan face in the thumbnail side by side with non
Aryan face)"
Be careful! That is almost certainly a fake oval face produced
by cosmetic surgery, which should under no circumstances be
called "Aryan" since it is not genetic. A genetically non-Aryan
face can be trimmed into an artificial oval like this:
[img]
HTML https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRjRRYpjUItnGkb8wPCd0xeMM_lzt2IgVrU7A&usqp=CAU[/img]
The procedure only affects the outer perimeter, thus the
internal facial features remain proportioned for the genetically
more robust face, hence look off-balance inside the fake oval.
Aesthetically, the fake oval fails to convey the impression of
nobility that a true Aryan face delivers effortlessly:
[img]
HTML https://img1.baidu.com/it/u=3021485224,2899834606&fm=253&fmt=auto&app=138&f=JPEG?w=459&h=500[/img]
Contrast this with the face you posted. Note in particular the:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/human-evolution/aryan-teeth/
which are the mark of evolved gracilization.
#Post#: 12277--------------------------------------------------
Re: Face Shapes and Preferences
By: 90sRetroFan Date: March 25, 2022, 10:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]The “self seeking like” hypothesis[/quote]
Example that just came up:
HTML https://www.yahoo.com/news/daniel-radcliffe-says-texts-helena-192729776.html
[quote]Daniel Radcliffe says he texts with Helena Bonham Carter
and they plan to 'hang out' after he revealed his adolescent
crush on her during the Harry Potter reunion
[img]
HTML https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/TmmuSjzCquNHSXlpYsNsig--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTcwNTtoPTUyOTtjZj13ZWJw/https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/PtA4cj0HqkLzIjWOUYL8_w--~B/aD0xNTAwO3c9MjAwMDthcHBpZD15dGFjaHlvbg--/https://media.zenfs.com/en/insider_articles_922/6bfb6eb4c977a179837269d135c79823[/img][/quote]
HTML https://pbs.twimg.com/media/En9jYfYW8AA_k4T.jpg
For the record:
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Radcliffe
[quote]His Jewish mother was born in South Africa, traced her
ancestry to Jewish immigrants from Germany, Lithuania, Poland,
and Russia,[8][9][10][/quote]
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_Bonham_Carter
[quote]Her maternal grandmother, Baroness Hélène Fould-Springer,
was from an upper class Jewish family; she was the daughter of
Baron Eugène Fould-Springer (a French banker descended from the
Ephrussi family and the Fould dynasty) and Marie-Cécile von
Springer (whose father was Austrian-born industrialist Baron
Gustav von Springer, and whose mother was from the de
Koenigswarter family).[6][84][85] Hélène Fould-Springer
converted to Catholicism after the Second World War.[82][86]
Hélène's sister was the French philanthropist Liliane de
Rothschild (1916–2003), the wife of Baron Élie de Rothschild, of
the prominent Rothschild family (who had also married within the
von Springer family in the 19th century);[87][/quote]
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page