Girls: Height preference is ok. Men: If you have weight as a preference you're a pig

November 9, 2009

Taller people make more money. Maybe it's wise to prefer a mate with taller genes. It is about the genes after all.

Obviously it has nothing to do with money. And I still haven't seen any evidence supporting the whole "taller is better" genes thing.

November 9, 2009

I think men and women can both like what they like. I'm a slim girl, and most of the guys I've dated have dated mostly slim girls (I think) and have a preference for that. Preferences aren't the problem - how you state them is.

I prefer tall men. I don't tell short men that I wouldn't date them 'cause they're short... I would never put 'No shorties' in a profile. If it asks me for 'Preferences' I'll put my height and weight (I don't like big guys either) preferences down, but that's about it. It's all about being reasonable and discrete. Sure, I care what you look like---but I'm not going to diss whole populations to a guy I like or don't like. No need; that's tacky.

I'm currently in a country where 90% of the population is pretty slim... and I have some friends that aren't. So, if a man went on and on about how he didn't like fat chicks, yeah, I'd be offended. People come in all shapes and sizes, and somebody likes each one, I hope. Everyone is free to like what they like, but why talk **** about those girls/guys they aren't attracted to. A simple, "She/He is not my type" will suffice.

It's about manners.

What do you mean by "short." Do you mean shorter than you? Because that makes sense. Do you mean slightly shorter than average but still shorter than you? Because if so then that is retarded.

Also can you explain why height is SO important to you?

November 9, 2009

Obviously it has nothing to do with money. And I still haven't seen any evidence supporting the whole "taller is better" genes thing.

Ive heard that too that taller people are more successful. I dont know if it is true, maybe it is based on presumption that the bigger the better chance to be a pack leader therefore a leader. You cant deny women like leaders. I have seen some statistics proving that based on US presidents height.

Evidence....I thought it is obvious before I read this thread. I try to be more concrete then>

Better nutrition=taller children....your parents were successful hunters and so are you (at least there is a good chance you inherited it) as long as you are not super skinny and begging for food.

Predators are intimidated by height. Why? Probably because taller people tend to have longer reach and are stronger-more muscle mass. Watch some boxing match. The bigger the boxer the better chance he has. I can elaborate but I hope it is common sense that taller person has an advantage in hand to hand combat.

Testosterone levels has something to do with height (not always of course and Im not 100 sure about this argument). Why is testosterone important? Makes you more agile, virile and it is bad for immune system, so when one is full of testosterone (wide cheek bones etc.) and still manages to be healthy it shows his immune system is pretty good.

I hope it is obvious that ability to win a fight and intimidate enemies are evolutionary advantages. Do you agree?

Edited November 9, 2009 by DanielMadr

November 10, 2009

Ive heard that too that taller people are more successful. I dont know if it is true, maybe it is based on presumption that the bigger the better chance to be a pack leader therefore a leader. You cant deny women like leaders. I have seen some statistics proving that based on US presidents height.

According to a 2005 survey, the average height of a Fortune 500 CEO is 6'0 (and keep in mind that most of these guys are OLD and come from a generation that was noticeably shorter than Gen X and Gen Y). Furthermore, 30% of them are 6'2 or taller (compared to 3.9% of the geneal population) and only 3% are under 5'7. So apparently, tall men are not only physically superior; they are smarter too.

November 10, 2009

DanielMadr seems to be talking about evolutionary advantage from the perspective of one single viewpoint - a fist fight. That not only excludes environments in which human beings are social animals, but shows that he misunderstands that there are many documented evolutionary advantages to being short. No-one would deny there are evolutionary advantages to being tall but to deny there are advantages to either aspects of height is a bigoted, irrational view.

The same type of argument has been used over the years to suggest that different races are superior to each other. E.g. "The white man is smarter, more equipped, and the coloured man has no evolutionary advantage". You can pull this sort of argument off of any race hate website - that's the level of ignorance on display here. He negates the counterbalance that there are evolutionary advantages to being short in the context of human evolution as a social animal adapting to change. We don't, and have never lived in an environment in which the ability to win a fist fight is the single most important characteristic of survival.

We also hear the same argument from Johnny M too:

So apparently, tall men are not only physically superior; they are smarter too.

Lets look at the scientific consensus, as opposed to people who haven't shown up at school and come on a forum to disrespectfully engage on a subject they know nothing about. If they want to be the better man and get an education on this subject chapters 3 and 4 from "Human Body Size and the Laws of Scaling" go into the relative merits of taller and shorter human height.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PCU0RwDI6c4C&dq=Human+Body+Size+and+the+Laws+of+Scaling:+Physiological,+Performance,+Growth,+Longevity+and+Ecological+Ramifications&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=sxYM2kI8Si&sig=rNTGTGP_m39fFrX_rhM5ba3SyHM&hl=en&ei=eej4SrLzNcaj4Qa8kfWxCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

The following is an excerpt they might want to read before presenting a flawed one dimensional argument: The last point is particularly relative to the current environment we are living in.

Physical advantages of shorter height
Shorter people of the same proportions as taller people have many physical advantages based on the laws of physics, and these advantages are supported by many researchers. Shorter people have faster reaction times, greater ability to accelerate body movements, stronger muscles in proportion to body weight, greater endurance, and the ability to rotate the body faster. They are also less likely to break bones in falling. As a consequence of these physical attributes, shorter people can excel as gymnasts, divers, skiers, martial artists, rock climbers, figure skaters, rodeo riders, soccer players and long distance runners. Within their weight classes they are excellent wrestlers, boxers, and weight lifters. Shorter people are also less likely to require surgery for herniated spinal disks. In addition, shorter people are less likely to break a hip from falling. Another advantage of smaller people is that they are less likely to die in auto crashes. One study found that people weighing less than 132 pounds had the lowest risk of dying or suffering serious injuries compared to bigger people. Although height data weren't provided, it is known that height and weight tend to be correlated. Thus, lighter weight people are more likely to be shorter than heavier people. No adjustments for air bag deployment were made, although other studies have found them to negatively affect short people.
Increased longevity of shorter, smaller people
An early paper illustrating the greater longevity of shorter people appeared in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization in 1992. Since then we have presented substantial findings showing that shorter, smaller people live longer. The reason for this is that bigger bodies have more cells and these cells are subject to replacement due to wear or damage. Hayflick pointed out many years ago that most human body cells have limited capacity for duplication. Since bigger people require a larger number of duplications to reach maturity, they have fewer potential cell doublings left to replace defective or dead cells. Thus, the functional capability of vital organs declines with advanced age because damaged cells can't be replaced. A new study also showed that oxidative damage to cells increases at a higher rate with increasing height; e.g., an 18% increase in height leads to an 83% increase in cellular damage. Current gerontological thinking is that oxidative damage leads to aging and death. A few years ago, a comprehensive study of about 300 height and cancer papers, concluded that taller people had a 20 to 60% higher incidence of cancer compared to shorter people. More recently, breast, testicular, and prostate cancer studies found taller women and men suffered from substantially higher cancer rates.
Short people are not immune to death from heart disease, cancer, and other causes. Failure to control diet, physical inactivity, overweight, depression, and anger can lead to serious health problems. Therefore, poor health and mental practices can lead to reduced longevity for people of any height.
Reduced risk of cardiovascular disease of shorter people
In 2004, we published a paper in the Medical Science Monitor. The paper reviewed published data showing that shorter people have lower cardiovascular disease. Data from Europe, California, Native American tribes, Japan, Okinawa, Papua New Guinea, Pakistan, and India show large increases in coronary heart disease with increasing height. Our report was based on millions of deaths as well as both heterogeneous and homogeneous population samples. Earlier studies by other researchers found shorter people have more cardiovascular disease than taller people or that there is little difference between tall and short people. A recent large study in Korea found no significant relation between height and heart disease. In recent years, researchers have also reported that increased risk of heart disease in short people may be due to higher levels of cholesterol and body weight.
Many studies from traditional societies have found very little to no cardiovascular disease among these populations which are almost always quite short and light. We believe Western studies that conflict with ours are corrupted by several factors: accelerated growth of small babies, being overweight during childhood and adulthood, lower socioeconomic levels, and bad diets. Many studies that conflict with our findings are based on small population samples involving a small number of deaths. In addition, low birth weight children that experience accelerated growth have increased risk of adult coronary heart disease and diabetes. Thus, the practice of promoting catch-up growth or overfeeding of low birth weight children can increase adult mortality of some shorter people. Another potential problem is that most researchers compare leaner tall people to shorter, stockier people, which can favor taller people and provide misleading results.
Reduced negative impact on the environment, water needs, and resource consumption
A population of 6 billion people averaging 6' and 190 pounds can impact human survival by creating more pollution and depletion of resources, such as water, energy, minerals, farm land, and oil. The reason for this is that a 6' person weighing 190 pounds is 73% heavier and has 44% more surface area than a 5' person weighing 110 pounds. (The weight difference is based on tall and short people having the same proportions.) If the future US population increased by 20%, we would need additional 1.5 billion tons of minerals, plastics, and metals; 86 trillion additional gallons of fresh water; 180 million additional acres of farm land; and 80 million added tons of garbage. We would also produce 3 billion tons of additional carbon dioxide which is involved in global heating. And virtually everything else we use in modern society would increase since things are usually scaled to average human size.

November 10, 2009

According to a 2005 survey, the average height of a Fortune 500 CEO is 6'0 (and keep in mind that most of these guys are OLD and come from a generation that was noticeably shorter than Gen X and Gen Y). Furthermore, 30% of them are 6'2 or taller (compared to 3.9% of the geneal population) and only 3% are under 5'7. So apparently, tall men are not only physically superior; they are smarter too.

14 Fortune 500 CEO's are coloured, are you going to draw the same conclusion on race?

November 10, 2009

14 Fortune 500 CEO's are coloured, are you going to draw the same conclusion on race?

Apples and oranges. To become a Fortune 500 CEO, you have to 1) be highly educated and 2) spend decades climbing the corporate ladder to accomplish a high level of seniority (which means that most CEOs are old by definition). There are so few colored CEOs because there aren't that many highly educated, old colored men in general. Higher education for colored people is a fairly new concept. When today's Fortune 500 were getting their education, most universities were nearly all-white.

November 10, 2009

Apples and oranges. To become a Fortune 500 CEO, you have to 1) be highly educated and 2) spend decades climbing the corporate ladder to accomplish a high level of seniority (which means that most CEOs are old by definition). There are so few colored CEOs because there aren't that many highly educated, old colored men in general. Higher education for colored people is a fairly new concept. When today's Fortune 500 were getting their education, most universities were nearly all-white.

I see so apparently social bias only applies to colour then which mitigates their circumstances. Supposedly you have evidence that the fact that the average Fortune 500 CEO being tall corresponds to genetics?

Do you know what reverse causality is and the role in drawing incorrect conclusions? "CEO's are tall, therefore being tall makes you smart" is a prime example of reverse causality and a totally flawed argument.

November 10, 2009

So apparently, tall men are not only physically superior; they are smarter too.

I'd say there are tall men who are smart and there are short men who are smart. And there are tall men who are stupid and there are short men who are stupid.

November 10, 2009

According to a 2005 survey, the average height of a Fortune 500 CEO is 6'0 (and keep in mind that most of these guys are OLD and come from a generation that was noticeably shorter than Gen X and Gen Y). Furthermore, 30% of them are 6'2 or taller (compared to 3.9% of the geneal population) and only 3% are under 5'7. So apparently, tall men are not only physically superior; they are smarter too.

you just seem like a huge troll now

November 10, 2009

Ive heard that too that taller people are more successful. I dont know if it is true, maybe it is based on presumption that the bigger the better chance to be a pack leader therefore a leader. You cant deny women like leaders. I have seen some statistics proving that based on US presidents height.

I'm guessing this is most likely because taller people are more confident and shorter people less confident due to discrimination.

Better nutrition=taller children....your parents were successful hunters and so are you (at least there is a good chance you inherited it) as long as you are not super skinny and begging for food.

I know that height usually goes up with better nutrition but the change is so small and so gradual that it would not be noticeable over a single lifetime and therefore a human would not be able to subconciously relate health with height.

Predators are intimidated by height. Why? Probably because taller people tend to have longer reach and are stronger-more muscle mass. Watch some boxing match. The bigger the boxer the better chance he has. I can elaborate but I hope it is common sense that taller person has an advantage in hand to hand combat.

Mike tyson = 5'10.

But besides that, taller people would only have an advantage in a fight because of longer reach in striking. I can guarantee you that back in the cavemen days, fighting didn't involve striking like there is in martial arts todays. It would've involved just fighting like animals do, in which case a longer reach wouldn't really mean much.

Testosterone levels has something to do with height (not always of course and Im not 100 sure about this argument). Why is testosterone important? Makes you more agile, virile and it is bad for immune system, so when one is full of testosterone (wide cheek bones etc.) and still manages to be healthy it shows his immune system is pretty good.

Shorter people tend to be more agile than taller people, who tend to be less coordinated.

I hope it is obvious that ability to win a fight and intimidate enemies are evolutionary advantages. Do you agree?

Win a fight no, but I agree that height is more "intimidating", and may be an advantage, yes, but not a big enough one to account for womens huge thing towards height.

November 10, 2009

I see so apparently social bias only applies to colour then which mitigates their circumstances. Supposedly you have evidence that the fact that the average Fortune 500 CEO being tall corresponds to genetics?

I just gave you evidence. Unless, of course, you believe that these CEOs were appointed to their positions solely because directors of Fortune 500 corporations could not get over how f*cking sexy these tall guys were

Edited November 10, 2009 by Johnny M

November 10, 2009

No, I'm sure they were made CEOs because shareholders of Fortune 500 corporations could not get over how f*cking sexy these tall guys were

So given that you can't give us a genetic link, perhaps it's just a social bias as I keep telling you. You'll find a different story in countries that are yet to be "hollywoodised" to the same endemic extent that is prevalent in your part of the world.

Oh and using reverse causality isn't "evidence", it's just a flawed illogical argument. This is a bit like debating symbolic logic with someone that can't add up

Edited November 10, 2009 by Rudderless

November 10, 2009

So apparently, tall men are not only physically superior; they are smarter too.

There is no evidence that of a positive correlation between height and IQ.

November 10, 2009

Better nutrition=taller children....

Up to a point, but eating right won't change your genetic makeup.

November 10, 2009

There is no evidence that of a positive correlation between height and IQ.

Actually, there is, but not in the way people are stating here. Scientifically it is to do with a link between good nutrition which encourages height as well as IQ.

However, genetically, height and IQ aren't correlated, so it's a social bias according to who gets the better nutrition, as determined by these studies. Also as you stated, there is a limit to how much nutrition influences height.

November 10, 2009

I'm guessing this is most likely because taller people are more confident and shorter people less confident due to discrimination.

Catch 22?

I know that height usually goes up with better nutrition but the change is so small and so gradual that it would not be noticeable over a single lifetime and therefore a human would not be able to subconciously relate health with height.

You've missed my ponit. Your ancestors had to be successful to feed their children properly and to gradually produce taller and taller offsprings. Tall person now doesn't have to necessarily be good provider but there is a good chance he is because he might inherited it.

Mike tyson = 5'10.

But besides that, taller people would only have an advantage in a fight because of longer reach in striking. I can guarantee you that back in the cavemen days, fighting didn't involve striking like there is in martial arts todays. It would've involved just fighting like animals do, in which case a longer reach wouldn't really mean much.

I also talked about muscle mass=strengh. Whichever technique of fight you choose unless its a gunfight, taller person has an advantage. Even using a bow or spear is much easier for taller person too. All with a condition he is shaped properly to his height.

Shorter people tend to be more agile than taller people, who tend to be less coordinated.

Yes that is true. I guess thanks to gravity and physics one can be tall too much to rob him of the advantages, tallness usually has.

Win a fight no, but I agree that height is more "intimidating", and may be an advantage, yes, but not a big enough one to account for womens huge thing towards height.

It is intimidating for a reason;)

Ask any reasonable martial art specialist...they tell you that "The bigger they are the harder they fall" is just not the whole truth. You have to be much better then the bigger person, because he does more damage to you than you do to him when the punch lands or choking occurs etc.

I dont know why it is so big for women to have taller man. Im guessing its the better potential for being a leader(more confident), intimidate predators, and good hunter and being stronger/dominating (submissive sexual thrill).

November 10, 2009

No-one would deny there are evolutionary advantages to being tall....

Thank you. Thats all I wanted to hear from you.

Now lets discuss why it is so big issue for women.

It just seems to me that being good in "fistfight" or FIGHT (hunting and protection included) was such a big issue for women they cant get rid of it now. And I dont blame them. As I said world is still a dangerous place and few years of relative peace can't change the way people think and rightly so, because peace and prosperity is fragile.

November 10, 2009

Wow....I'd been browsing around this part of the forums....looks like this one got a lot of responses.

So I'll throw in my feedbak.

I've known women that were...say 5'3" 5"4......who, apparently like to factor in their High Heels as part of their hgt.

I am around 5'8"...and of course that's too short for woman of said ht, because SHE says, "Well, I wear 5" heels, so that would bring me to about eye-level to you, sorry, not going to do that."

I think that's a level of shallowness when it comes to ht. standards that's really way out there.

November 10, 2009

Wow....I'd been browsing around this part of the forums....looks like this one got a lot of responses.

So I'll throw in my feedbak.

I've known women that were...say 5'3" 5"4......who, apparently like to factor in their High Heels as part of their hgt.

I am around 5'8"...and of course that's too short for woman of said ht, because SHE says, "Well, I wear 5" heels, so that would bring me to about eye-level to you, sorry, not going to do that."

I think that's a level of shallowness when it comes to ht. standards that's really way out there.

Let's not forget, that men enable this by kissing the behinds of women,a ll the time. The reason why women can be this picky is because guys allow them to be. Women that insist on dating only guys 6'3+ only date guys that tall, because those guys will date them..

All sorts of horrific behavior by women gets enabled because some g uy wants to have sex...

Do an experiment. Volunteer. You'll notice that there are virtually no women under the age of 33 that volunteer.

November 10, 2009

Wow....I'd been browsing around this part of the forums....looks like this one got a lot of responses.

So I'll throw in my feedbak.

I've known women that were...say 5'3" 5"4......who, apparently like to factor in their High Heels as part of their hgt.

I am around 5'8"...and of course that's too short for woman of said ht, because SHE says, "Well, I wear 5" heels, so that would bring me to about eye-level to you, sorry, not going to do that."

I think that's a level of shallowness when it comes to ht. standards that's really way out there.

OK. She was a bytch. Some people are just mean. But I bet if she couldnt throw you out of balance by saying that s@hit, you would bed her the same night. If you wanted to of course....and who would like to bed a biatche anyway.

November 10, 2009

Let's not forget, that men enable this by kissing the behinds of women,a ll the time. The reason why women can be this picky is because guys allow them to be. Women that insist on dating only guys 6'3+ only date guys that tall, because those guys will date them..

All sorts of horrific behavior by women gets enabled because some g uy wants to have sex...

Do an experiment. Volunteer. You'll notice that there are virtually no women under the age of 33 that volunteer.

YEAH Women are evil They dont even volunteer. (sarcasm)

But you are right that lot of men forget to not gratificate bad behaviour.

But I seriously doubt that reason for women liking taller men is something superficial or worth of contempt.

November 10, 2009

YEAH Women are evil They dont even volunteer. (sarcasm)

But you are right that lot of men forget to not gratificate bad behaviour.

But I seriously doubt that reason for women liking taller men is something superficial or worth of contempt.

I think it's instinctual for women to want taller men. Women want the best survival genese for their kids, hence why so many women go for thuggish men, because they are tough, and likely to survive. They do however want a "nice guy" to raise the kid, but want to have the kid with a thug.

November 10, 2009

I think it's instinctual for women to want taller men. Women want the best survival genese for their kids, hence why so many women go for thuggish men, because they are tough, and likely to survive. They do however want a "nice guy" to raise the kid, but want to have the kid with a thug.

Can you blame them? I wouldnt go to war with so called nice guy either.

November 10, 2009

Thank you. Thats all I wanted to hear from you.

That's what you wanted to hear from me? I never actually said otherwise. I mentioned that diversity was important in adaptability but going forward there's no major advantage towards being taller (note I quantify it, not negate it) and in fact, there's an argument towards shorter being a greater evolutionary advantage. To which you replied

You argument about making things more compact due to overpopulating wasnt meant seriously was it?

The link to the google book I gave you has a whole chapter on the impact of overpopulation on height going forward which discusses that and draws a similar conclusion. In fact there's a subfield of science that discusses it. So yes, I was being serious, and no you still can't hide the fact that you come into this discussion with complete ignorance of what's being talked about and are only focusing on one side (not even side actually, just a rather minor facet) of this subject in a rather blinkered manner. Edited November 10, 2009 by Rudderless

Sign In

Girls: Height preference is ok. Men: If you have weight as a preference you're a pig

Recommended Posts

mbeewood

mbeewood

DanielMadr

Johnny M

Rudderless

Rudderless

Johnny M

Rudderless

pacific84

mbeewood

mbeewood

Johnny M

Rudderless

clv0116

clv0116

Rudderless

DanielMadr

DanielMadr

b52s

betamanlet

DanielMadr

DanielMadr

betamanlet

DanielMadr

Rudderless

What's New

My Activity Streams

More...